[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on 'Dvaita'
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on 'Dvaita'
-
From: shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Shrisha Rao)
-
Date: 3 Jun 1995 02:53:31 -0600
-
Followup-To: alt.religion.vaisnava,alt.hindu
-
From shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu Sat Jun 3 04: 42:26 1995
-
Keywords: Madhva, Dvaita, Mukhya Praana, Vaayu, Nyaaya, Bimba, prati-bimba.
-
Newsgroups: alt.religion.vaisnava, alt.hindu
-
Organization: /o_.r-g*-n*-'za_--sh*n/ n. The act or process of organizing or of being organized; also, the condition or manner of being organized.
-
Sender: Shrisha.Rao@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Shrisha Rao)
-
Summary: Some comments on the 'Dvaita' entry in the online version of the E.B.
This is a posting where I make some comments upon an entry under
'Dvaita' in the online version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica
(available on the WWW at http://www.eb.com). The quoted material has
been sent to me by Mani Varadarajan <mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com>, to
whom I offer my thanks for the same.
>Britannica Online Help
>
>Dvaita
>
>[Index] (Sanskrit: "Dualism"), an important school in the orthodox Hindu
>philosophical system of Vedanta. Its founder was [Index] Madhva, also
>called Anandatirtha (c. 1199-1278), who came from the area of modern
>Karnataka state, where he still has many followers. Already during his
>lifetime, Madhva was regarded by his followers as an incarnation of the
>wind god Vayu, who had been sent to earth by the lord Vishnu to save the
>good, after the powers of evil had sent the philosopher [Index]
>Shankara, an important proponent of the Advaita ("Nondualist") school.
"Already during his lifetime" is questionable usage; better to say
"even during his lifetime," but we'll let it rest at that.
As I have noted in other postings, the name 'Madhva' itself comes
solely by the identification of Ananda Tiirtha as the third
incarnation of Mukhya Praana, as stated in the Balitthaa Suukta. While
Mukhya Praana is also called Vaayu, he is not, strictly speaking, "the
wind god." According to the taaratamya (divine heirarchy), the
"pravaha vaayu" who is also called a praana, and who literally is the
wind god, is below Indra; Mukya Praana is much higher, being next only
to chatur-mukha Brahma.
The word 'Vaayu' in Sanskrit is related to the Latin 'vita,' which
means 'life,' and which is the root for the English 'vital,'
'vitality,' etc.; 'Vaayu' also relates to the French 'vive' (as in
'Vive la France'). The most important meaning of 'Vaayu' is thus again
seen to be 'life,' tho this meaning has become uncommon in everyday
usage, and is found mostly in scholarly texts. Thus, it is better to
say "Madhva was regarded as ... the god of *life*, Vaayu."
>
>In his expositions, Madhva shows the influence of the [Index] Nyaya
>philosophic school. He maintains that Vishnu is the supreme God, thus
>identifying the Brahman of the Upanisads with a personal God, as
>Ramanuja (c. 1050-1137) had done before him. There are in Madhva's
>system three eternal, ontological orders: that of God, that of soul, and
>that of inanimate nature. The existence of God is demonstrable by
>logical proof, though only scripture teaches his nature. He is the
>epitome of all perfections and possesses a nonmaterial body,
>which consists of saccidananda (being, spirit, and bliss). God is the
>efficient cause of the universe, but Madhva denies that he is the
>material cause, for God cannot have created the world by splitting
>himself nor in any other way, since that militates against the doctrine
>that God is unalterable; in addition, it is blasphemous to accept that a
>perfect God changes himself into an imperfect world.
>
The above paragraph about Madhva's school is by far the least
objectionable that I have seen the E.B. produce so far, but it still
contains a few errors, as in saying that Madhva's position is that
"the existence of God is demonstrable by logical proof." Some scholars
of Nyaaya do adopt this view, but Madhva, who allegedly "shows the
influence" of their school, says clearly that such is not the case; we
cannot prove His existence by logic alone, because even the opposite
conclusion can be inferred: "Na cha anumaanaat tat sidhhihi;
viparyayena api anumaatum shakyatvaat."
Madhva also says, "Sat-chit-aananda Aatmeti maanushaischa
sureshvaraihi yathaa-kramam bahugunaihi; Brahmanaat akhilaihi
gunaihi," meaning that humans, the lowest of the mumukshus (jiivas fit
for eventual mukti) realize only three of His attributes, namely that
He is Sat, Chit, and Aananda. Higher souls like the devas realize more
of His properties, as per their ability ("yathaa-kramam
bahu-gunaihi"), and Brahma and the rju-taatvika-yogis realize an
infinite number of His attributes ("Brahmanaat akhilaihi gunaihi") --
while still missing out on an even larger infinity of others. The only
reason I say all this is to make the point that Madhva is not limiting
the Lord's properties to these three, as is implied when the E.B. says
that according to Madhva, His body, which is His svaruupa, "consists
of saccidananda"; he is saying, rather, that His properties are these
three and more.
"It is blasphemous..." tends to show Madhva's teaching as carrying the
flavor of prophetic preachment, something which it does not -- while
Madhva does indeed assert that it is inconceivable that a perfect Lord
could transform Himself into a far-from-perfect universe, he does not
rely on the accusation of blasphemy to silence this argument. He says,
rather, that no scripture speaks of such transformation; that if there
indeed had been such a transformation, the Lord would not exist as of
now (when a flower transforms into a fruit, the flower and the fruit
do not exist together); that to say that such a transformation took
place is to say that it took place at some finite time in the past (or
else the differences between Him and the universe would not have a
beginning, and would always have existed), and that brings up the
problem of our inability to describe the state of affairs existing
before that time, and also the problem of our running counter to
scriptures which state that such differences have always existed,
etc.
>The individual souls are countless in number and are of atomic
>proportions. They are a "portion" of God and exist completely by the
>grace of God; in their actions they are totally subject to God. It is
>God, too, that allows the soul, to a limited extent, freedom of action
>in a way commensurate with one's past acts (karma).
Madhva does not say that the jiivas are a "portion" of the Paramaatman;
the correct analogy he uses is one involving an object viewed in a
mirror. The object, or bimba, is independent of its reflection, or
prati-bimba, but the latter totally depends on the bimba. So also, each
jiiva is a "reflection" of the Lord to a certain extent, but is not a
perfect reproduction of the original, nor a part of the original.
According to Madhva, the jiiva is unlike a material entity, in that an
infinite number of jiivas can occupy a finite amount of space, without
abrading or deforming one another as material objects do. Each jiiva
always has knowledge of itself, even when it is not embodied, or when
it is fast asleep, etc. The mind and other sense-organs function
discontinuously, but the "saakshii" (literally: witness) indriya,
which is supposed to be "aatma-svaruupa" or the self-same nature of
the jiiva, functions continuously, perceiving itself all the
time. Madhva also holds that the saakshii is irrefutable, and that it
is the ultimate source of conviction; once one's saakshii perceives
something to be true, no more validatory evidence is needed, nor can
the conviction ever be shaken -- an example of this is one's
perception of oneself, which does not need independent evidence, and
which is so well understood and so strongly grasped that any
hypothesis to the contrary is rejected out of hand. The jiiva
undertakes many actions and gradually gains in knowledge; the last
step of realization is called "Bimba-darshana," whence it perceives
its Bimba, the Lord, and its own Bimba-pratibimba relationship to Him,
thru the saakshi. From then on, the jiiva is never deluded, and
attains mukti shortly.
Madhva also says matter is infinitely divisible; one may not have the
tools, nor the techniques, to split matter beyond a certain point, nor
the ability to describe the fineness of matter beyond a certain point,
but there is always a smaller division than one can account for.
>Ignorance, which for Madhva as for many other Indian philosophers means
>mistaken knowledge [Index] (ajqana), can be removed or corrected by
>means of devotion [Index] (bhakti). Devotion can be attained in various
>ways: by solitary study of the scriptures, by performing one's duty
>without self-interest, or by practical acts of devotion. This devotion
>is accompanied by an intuitive insight into God's nature, or it may be a
>special kind of knowledge. Bhakti may itself become a goal; for the
>devotee, his adoration of Vishnu is more important than the release that
>ensues from it.
In addition to gnyaana, or correct knowledge, Madhva speaks of *three*
other states: "samshaya," or knowledge with doubt, "agnyaana," or
non-knowledge, and "vipariita gnyaana," or incorrect knowledge. These
are distinct states, and Madhva does not confound any one with either
of the others, as the E.B. does. The jiiva dwells in ignorance almost
until mukti, and has done so for all time in the past; it however does
not have incorrect knowledge unless it gains such knowledge from some
source.
>The present-day following of Dvaita has as its centre a monastery at
>Udipi, in Karnataka state, which was founded by Madhva himself and has
>continued under an uninterrupted series of abbots.
This is grossly incorrect. The chief Maadhva institution of the
present day is the *temple* of Krishna at Udupi; the *eight* mathas at
Udupi that serve the Lord are possibly what inspire the use of
"monastery." None of the eight, however, was started by Madhva; his
immediate followers started some, and more mathas were added years and
years later. This, in fact, led to some friction, since the various
mathas could not agree on the methods of worship at the Krishna
temple, nor on who was in charge there. Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha
(1480-1600) settled this dispute once and for all, and instituted the
present paryaaya system, according to which each matha is in charge
for a two-year period, so that all have a chance sometime during a
sixteen-year cycle.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Related Propaedia Topics:
>
>The schools of Vedanta: the contribution of Shankara and Ramanuja and
>their followers; the schools of Nimbarka, Vallabha, and Caitanya
>
>Hindu philosophy: the integral relation of philosophy and religion in
>Hinduism
>
>--
