[Prev][Next][Index]
dvaita-vAda
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: dvaita-vAda
-
From: nparker@crl.com (Nathan Parker)
-
Date: 1 Mar 1995 19:48:00 -0800
-
From nparker@crl.com Wed Mar 1 22: 38:32 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
[ Article crossposted from alt.religion.vaisnava ]
[ Author was Nathan Parker ]
[ Posted on 27 Feb 1995 14:51:16 -0800 ]
The following is a summary of dvaita-vAda, as printed in the book
"j(n)Ana-cakShaNi", BhaktivedAnta Academy (Coimbatore).
This file is 60k, so download it if you are interested, skip it if you
are not.
Please ignore the odd characters and the odd broken words, my editor has
some error in it, and places spaces randomly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Philosophy of dvaita vedanta:
Sripada Madhvacarya, the propounder of 'Dvaita'...
The criterion of reality according to Madhva is that it should be
unsuperimposed (anaropitam) and given as an object of valid knowledge,
as existing at some point of time and in some place. These two ideas are
complementary and are implicit in Madhva s definition of Reality
(tattvam) given by him as prameyam. Reality in the ordinary sense of
the term may consist in one or more of the three aspects of existence,
consciousness and activity.
Though existence is thus reality, Madhva recognizes that its
highest expression must be metaphysical independence of every other form
of existence in finite reality, in respect of its being, powers and
activity. Everything in finite reality is therefor e grounded in the
Independent Reality, known as Brahman and needs it for its being and
becoming.
While existence in space and time is thus reality and is possessed
by the world of matter and souls, there must be something more than mere
existence, having metaphysical independence or substantiality in its own
right which may be designated as the hig hest real or the philisophical
Absolute which would be the ultimate expression of all else. Such
independent reality should be immanent in the universe, whence the latter
could derive and draw its sustenance. Without presupposing such a basic
and transcen dental reality that would have to be immanent in the world,
there would be chaos and disorder in the universe.
However, Madhvas chief ontological classification of being is
into principles viz. svatantra (Independent Reality) and paratantra
(Dependent Reality). The term Reality represents three primary data: the
thinking self, a world of external realiti es and indications of an
Infinite Power rising above them.
In Madhvas conclusions of Dvaita metaphysics reached by the
evidence of pratyaksa anumana and sabda pramana this infinite power
is that Supreme and Independent Principle which does not depend on any
other for its own nature and existence, self-awa reness or for becoming an
object of knowledge to the thinking selves for the free and unfettered
exercise of its own powers. This svatantra-tattva (independent
principle) is called God or Brahmanor Isvara. Though Brahman can do
very well without pra krti or purusa (Dependent Realities), it prefers, in
its infinite glory and inexorable will, to do with them. Such dependence
(apeksa) of Brahman on things which are in themselves dependent on It, is
no mark of inferiority or limitation.
The dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is
in the sense that both are functioning at His will, which is the essential
condition and sustaining principle that invests them with their reality
and without which they would be but void names and bare possibilities. The
dependent reals (as Madhva admits the plurality of the selves), by their
very nature, can have no absolute or unlimited jurisdiction over one
another and are distinct from Brahman. The individual souls and their
material enviornment are not independent. Madhva brings these eternal and
uncreated substances under the power of Supreme Being i.e., God as
svatantra, occupies the central position, with existent realities like
matter and souls keeping their legitimate position under Him. Thus
svatantra and paratantra are the fundamental presuppositions of
Madhvas philosophy which aim at understanding the metaphysical dependence
of all finite reality comprising the cetana and acetana world upon One
Infinite, Indepenten t Reality. Here Madhva points out that we have no
right to deny reality to the world of matter and souls, simply because
they are not independentor do not always exist in the same form. But they
are there, have been there and will be there though ever cha nging and
depending on Brahman.
Sri Madhva puts forward the idea of bimba-pratibimbabhava
(Original and Reflection) to illustrate the true nature of the
relationship between svatantra and paratantra. The relationship of
these two is of unilateral dependence of all finite reality on the
Independent principle, for its existence, knowledge, knowability, and
activity (satta, pratiti, and pravrtti). The relationship is not
unreal or reciprocal dependence rather the world cannot exist without God
as it owes its very power of exis tence, functioning etc., to God and
derives them from Him. The (symbolic) relation of bimbapratibimbabhava as
conceived by Madhva would be permanent and true of all states of the
jivatman and not merely as passing one, true of samsara alone. There will
be no destruction of the pratibimba so long as the contact of upadhi is
intact. The function of an upadhi (medium) is to manifest the pratibimba.
In the present case, it is the pristine nature of the jivasvarupa itself
as cit that would suffice, accordi ng to Madhva, to manifest itself to
itself in its true nature of metaphysical dependence on Brahman and of
being endowed with a measure of similarity of attributes (as part of the
meaning ofthe word (pratibimba) with its Original (Brahman) without
calli ng to aid the services of any external medium (bahyopadhi).
Doctorine of Difference:
It shown that matter, souls and God constitute the three major
realities of Madhvas system. The number of souls is unlimited and the
modifications of matter are numerous, in various states. These three are
conceived as distinct entities. The reality of God is of the independent
grade. That of the rest is depedent. Between matter and souls, the former
is of a lesser grade of reality. It is only in this sense that the
degrees of reality is explained in this system. The reality of things is
space and tim e involves the differences in name, form, attributes,
relations, and tendencies. These manifold differences are generally
classified under these heads: (1) sajatiya or difference of one thing from
others of its own kind, (2) vijatiya or difference from th ose of another
kind, and (3) svagata or internal distinctions within "an organic whole".
The last one is notadmitted by Madhva in its absolute sense. In the sphere
of other two differences he has given a scheme of "five-fold difference"
(Pancabheda)
(1) the distinction between Isvara and jiva
(2) the distinction between Isvara and jada (prakrti)
(3) the distinction among the jivas
(4) the distinction between the jiva and the jada
(5) the distinction among the jadas i.e, distinction between one
inanimate object and another.
This fivefold difference is collectively spoken of by Madhva as
"pra-panca". It is real and eternal.
Epistimology (The theory of pramana):
As the philosophical enquiry aims at acquiring information
regarding Reality, of which definite and valid knowledge is possible, all
our experience of truth (reality) has to be ascertained on the basis of
some objective standards by which they are judged . Because human
experience being at times vitiated by illusions, it becomes necessary to
define truth in experience so as to enable us to distinguish it from the
false. Epistimology deals with an investigation into the means of such
valid knowledge viz., the quest for an ultimate basis of certainty of all
experience and knowledge.
The philosophical inquiry is the testing of truth in the light of
proofs.
Madhva accepts in his theory of knowledge three pramanas or means
of valid knowledge. "A pramana is what comprehends an object of knowledge
as it is" or is the means of such comprehension. pramana, according to
Madhva, is not merely the means of correct knowledge but "truth" itself.
He defines pramana, compactly and comprehensively as `yathartham. This
definition covers both valid knowledge and the means thereof.
There are three means of valid knowldege: prathyaksa, anumana, and
sabda.
Pratyaksa or sense perception is defined as the knowledge produced
by the right type of contact (sannikarsa) between "flawless" sense
organs and their appropriate objects.
Flawless reasoning is defined as anumana. Inference is based on
the rememberance of vyapti (concomittance) between hetu (probans) and
sadhya (probandum).
Flawless word, conveying valid sense, is "agama" or sabda. This
sabdapramana is divided into pauruseya and apauruseya. The Vedic
literature is regardes as apauruseya and the smritis, Puranas and other
works based on Vedic authority are accepted as pau ruseya agama.
The term flawlessness (nirdosatva) applies to every pramana. It
refers to specific conditions under which alone the pramanas become valid
means of knowledge. In the case of pratyaksa, the right kind of
rapprochement between the sense-organs and the obj ect as well as other
conditions of suitable distance, angle of observation, adequate light and
so on are meant to be conveyed by the term nirdosa. These conditions are
applicable to the object, the sense organs and their contact as well.
Perception beco mes faulty through excessive remoteness, nearness or
smallness of objects or of intervening obstructions or being mixed up with
things similar or through being over shadowed by them. Knowledge, arising
when all these conditions of flawlessness are fulfill ed, is bound to be
true and valid: yathartham.
Other pramanas like arthapatti (presumption) which shows a way
out in cases of apparent conflict between two facts (for eg., given that
Mr. X is alive, if he is not at home, he must be presumed to be out
somewhere), upamana, a means of establishing sim ilarity between two
things, anupalabdhi (non-apprehension) is a means by which non-existence
of an object is known etc. are not considered as seperate pramana but
brought under inference, perception, or verbal testimony, according to the
conditions of each case.
Memory is admitted as a pramana or souce of valid knowledge, by
Madhva. He brings memory under pratyaksa and considers it as a direct
perception by the mind (manasa-prathyaksa). Its validity cannot, he
says, be treated as merely inferential. Memory is defined as the direct
apprehensions of mind penetrating into past.
The Theory of Validity:
Pramanas give rise to valid knowledge of things "as they are in
fact". Validity is genrally defined in terms of corespondence with
objective reality. Thus pramana means yathartham; or what comprehends
a thing as it is. Knowledge carries its own proof.
The Theory of Saksi:
Though Madhva accepts that validity is intrinsic to pramana,
defined as yathartham, he does not rule out the possibility of error in
experience. Under ideal conditions, error will have no chance. But the
actual conditions of life being what they are, e rror cannot altogether be
eliminated.
Sense organs (being materially constituted), when vitiated by
flaws, give rise to invalid knowledge or misapprehension of knowledge. Our
experience shows that we do not become convinced of the validity of every
kind of knowlege that comes to us through t he sensory and mental channels
(vrtti-jnana) and which are also at times open to error. As knowledge,
by itself, is jada (insentient) as a modification of the antahkarana
and therefore incapable of self-revelation, the necessity of some other
princi ple by which the knowledge itself and its validity could be
intuited, should be admitted. Such a principle is saksi or
svarupendriya of the "knowing Self", which being Caitanyarupa
(conscious by nature) is capable of being both svaprakasaka and p
araprakasaka. Both knowledge and its validity are, thus grasped by the
saksi, in the ultimate analysis. The fact that some of our apprehensions
are found to be correct and others erroneous could only be explained on
the basis of the acceptance of saksi. Saksi (truth-determining principle)
is equipped with an inherent capacity to know the true from the false. The
verdict of saksi is flawless and must be regarded as true and valid for
all time, because the perception and judgements of the saksi are of the
essence of pure consciousness and therefore self-luminous and flawless in
regard to their nature and content of validity. In other words, the
validity of knowledge is, like the fact of knowledge, apprehended by saksi
itself, directly. Madhva establishes t he infalliability of saksi in
respect of its judjements of validity. If, however the direct experiences
of the saksi are proved to have been illusory experiences, either by
scripture or by some sort of transcendental perception, later it would
simply mean that the saksi has been mistaken in its earlier judgment about
their factual reality.
Thus Madhva makes two points (1) that in all cases of knowledge,
the fact of the knowledge is established not by the knowledge itself; but
by the evidence of saksi. The reason for this is that all vrtti-jnana
(mental and sensory) is material i.e., insent ient in sessence and has no
power to reveal its own existece.; (2) that such vrtti-jnana can by no
means, manifest its own "validity to itself". Therefore it necessitates a
non-material form of knowledge to do this. Here is where saksi comes into
picture, which is not something other than the Atman. saksi in Madhvas
epistemology, is the name of the spiritual sense organ (svarupendriya)
of the Self through which it intuits its experiences. The saksi, as an
instrument of knowledge and validation is not s omething extraneous to the
knowing self or pramata. The distinction of saksi into svarupa and
indriya" (self and organ) is only one of reference and not of essence.
Madhva thus postulates a new principle of truth-determination in
epistemology in the form saksi, as the the ultimate criterion of truth
which is infalliable and intrinsically valid. Its reasons are:
(1) that it alone can be the ultimate guarantor of the validity of
all pramanas,
(2) that is the logical fulfilment and culmination of any really
really self-complete theory of knowledge, and
(3) that it is the only means of intuitive perception of certain
supersensuous categories like Time, Space, the nature of self and its
attributes, the mind and its modes, all knowledge of pleasures and pain,
etc.
The Concept of 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 respec t of coessential
attributes and difference-cum-identity (bhedabheda) in the case of
transient attributes.
He made a stiking effort to rise above the dualism of substance
and attribures and combine them into a homogeneous whole that admits,
however, of logical, conceptual and linguistic distinction, wherever
necessary, through the self differentiating capac ity of substances
themselves, to be known as "visesas" or relative particulars.
These visesas are ubiquitious and are not confined to material
substances. They exist among sentients as well, including the Supreme
Being. In sentient beings, these visesas, whether manifested or not, are
identical with their substrata; while in regard to insentients, attributes
which are co-eval would be identical with the substances (and
distinguishable by visesas); while changing or impermanent ones would be
different-cum-identical with their substances. The whole question has been
very clearly expou nded by Jayatirtha: "visesa also is of two kinds as
pertaining to sentient beings. Some of these are produced and some are
eternal. Though the visesa as constituting the nature of a sentient
person is eternal, it is spoken of as being produced by re ason of its
becoming manifested at times and remaining unmanifested at other times. In
the same way, visesas pertaining to insentient things are also two fold in
their nature. The substance as such is the material cause of the visesas
in an insentient thi ng. Though the visesas co-exist with the substance,
as partaking of its nature, still a distinction can be made of them. In
respect of insentient reals some visesas are produced as effects and some
others last as long as the thing itself lasts.
visesa is thus the peculiar characteristic or potency of things
which makes description and talk of difference possible, where as a matter
of fact only identity exists. Visesas should not, be mistaken for new or
additional attributes of things; it is the power of things in themselves"
which, through an underlying identity of essence, enables us to
distinguish (i) a particular from its universal; (ii) a quality from its
substance; (ii) motion or power or energy from things possessing them;
(iv) the svaru pa from the svarupin and svarupatvam.
Madhva holds the view that it would be impossible to establish any
adequate theory of the relation between substance and attributes without
invoking the aid of visesas, which are also called svarupavisesas in
order to show that they are not "other than " the substance. There are
three possible ways in which the relation of substance and attributes is
generally conceived viz. (i) that they are "different" from each other
(atyantabhinna), (ii) "absolutely identical with each other"
(abhinna), (iii) "both identical and different" (bhinnabhinna). But,
Madhva holds a fouth view of savisesabheda (identity based on visesa) as
only accepted view while rejecting the above three. Difference between
substance and attributes must be accepted not as being absolutely
identical with the terms but "identical with a qualification"
(savisesabheda).
The function of visesas, in Madhvas philosophy, is not merely to
distinguish, but to unify the part and the whole.
Conclusion: The purpose visesa which is introduced in Madhvas
system is to explain " the appearance of bheda where there is none".
This concept distinguishes a quality from a substance and a part from the
whole. Between a substance and its quality o r between a whole and its
parts there is no difference. The difference appears on account of
visesa. For example, one cannot perceive any difference between the
cloth and its whitness, but he do percieve the visesa (particularity) of
the cloth. If the re where difference between cloth and whiteness, then
there would be difference between the difference and cloth, and between
difference and whiteness, and so on "ad infinitum". Visesa of Madhva,
characterises the eternal as well as non-eternal substance. In case of
God, the principle of visesa is employed to reconcile his unity with
plurality of his qualities and powers(saktis), and the plurality of His
divine body, divine dress, divine abode, and the like.
Definitions:
Brahman:
As already pointed out, Brahman, the only Independent Real is the
highest ontological principle of Madhvas philosophy. Brahman is possessed
of all adequate and unrestricted powers in regard to the cit and acit and
who is all knowing. He is the One who c ontrols the cit and acit (sentient
and insentient reals) which are of different nature from Him. The
Independent Being must, necessarily, be infinite in Its attributes because
an Independent Being Being cannot be finite and limited in any sense.
(i) Brahman as a person: The Supreme Brahman is a Person who has a
character of His own. The term personality as applied to Godhead denotes,
according to Madhva, not merely the existence of self-consciousness so
conceived, but also that the entire univer se is to be thought of as an
experience and not as an abstract content. This Divine Personality is
endowed with the faculties of cognition, conation and activity. God has
His own body and limbs - a spiritual Form with its own instruments of
knowledge and activity which is all one of knowledge and bliss. Madhva
identifies Brahman with Visnu and adore Rama and Krsna as His incarnations
but do not show any inclination for the worship of Gopala-Krsna and Radha.
(ii) Attributes of Brahman: Madhvas conception of God emphasises
two aspect of Divinity-the perfection of being (sarvagunapurnatvam) and
freedom from all limitations (sarvadosagandhavidhuratvam). These two
aspects cover and exhaust all that is great and good in the idea of God.
He is Infinite (purna), of perfect bliss, the real of reals (satyasya
satyam), eternal of eternal (nityo nityanam), the Sentient of all
sentients (cetanascetananam), the source of all reality, consciousness
and activi ty (sattapratitipravrttinimittam) in the finite. The
attributes and actions of Brahman are the same as itself. They are not
different. There is no mutual difference, either, among them. He is all
pervasive and (a-tata) and all perceiving (matr). All the several
attributes partake which the nature of Brahman are inseperable from Him
and from one another.
(iii) Cosmic activities of Brahman: The cosmic powers of the
Supreme are eight in number: creation, preservation, dissolution, control,
enlightenment, obscuration, bondage and release.
Madhva holds that the Supreme Being itself (identified with Visnu)
acts through the instrumentality of other gods (of limited jurisdiction
over particular aspects of cosmic activities) to conduct the cosmic
activities. It is Isvara Himself who directs pr operly, the various
potencies of Nature and of the souls for production, growth, development,
etc., which are always dependent on Him. The prakrti, purusas and their
respective capacities, their very presence, cognizability and functioing,
- all these are controlled by Isvara, eternally, through His eternal
power. Just as non-eternal things are ordained by the eternal will of
Isvara to be non-eternal, similarly, eternal substances too are ordained
by His will, be eternal. The jivas, their karma, categorie s, kala, sruti,
kriya etc., all these exist, function and are cognized only by His will
and pleasure. They have existence in His despite. Hence, the very reality,
existence, etc., of prakrti and other entities depend on His control. He
enters into prakrti and energizes it to transform in various ways and
assumes many forms to control such modifications.
(iv) Manifestations of Brahaman: The Supreme Lord puts on a
multiplicity of forms to evolve the univere through different stages.
These forms, though innumerable, are nevertheless identical with one
another, save for their numerical distinction. The fir st in the order of
Divine manifestations is the quaternion of Vasudeva, Pradyumna, Aniruddha
and Sankarsana, popularly known as the (catur) vyuha, credited with
redemptive, creative, sustaining and destructive functions. The Supreme
further differentiates itself into ten (familiar avatars) or twelve,
hundred, thousand and so on. These personal manifestation of the Lord are
spoken of as suddha-srsti, in Pancaratra terminology. They are also
designated as vyuhas in a general sense.
Madhva accepts four kinds of manifestaions of God (though he does
not use this nomenclature):
1. vyhas 2. avataras 3. Transcendent (para vasudeva) 4. Immanent
In Madhvas view these various manifestations are absolutely on a
par with one another. There is no gradation among them in respect of
powers or potentialities. Madhva is vehemently opposed to the idea of
making any invidious distinctions among these man ifestations of God or
putting some on a higher pedestal than others. "There is no room for
svagatabhededa in the Supreme" (neha nanasti kincana). It is the same
Infinite in every manifestation. The avatars are on a different footing
and are concernd wit h specific functions like bala karya, jnana karya
etc. Their number exceed ten as commonly recognized. There are avatars
like Hamsa, Datta and Hari, not included in the popular list of ten. To
Madhva all avatars are of equal merit and status. There is no question of
degree of fulness among them, no "partial" and "complete" avataras. He
takes his uncompromising stand on the authority of the Upanisads and
Pancaratric texts and rejects the commonly acceptd interpretation of the
Bhagavata text: "krsnast u bhagavan svayam" as inappropriate on
philosophical and syntactic grounds. He has thus no partiality or
preference for any particular avatar of God and treats all of them as
equal in rank, attributes and powers".
Jivas (Atman):
Souls are conceived in Madhvas system as finite centres of
conscious experience, each with a unique essence of its own. The essence
of individuality is that one finite centre of experience cannot possess,
"as its own immediate" experience, the experienc e of another. It is this
non-transferable immediacy of experience that distinguishes one self from
another, inspite of their possessing certain similar characteristics. Each
has a specific content of consciousness, reality and bliss and constitutes
a foca lization which is nowhere exactly repeated in nature. The nature of
the souls is to be one of unalloyed bliss and pure intelligence. It is
essentially free from any kind of misery or pain; though subjected to a
natural gradation of intelligence and bliss in cosmic hierarchy of selves
and subject always to the Supreme, in bondage "and in release". The sense
of misery, which is bondage, is external to their essence and is brought
about by a "real" though "misplaced sense of independence of initiative
and co nduct"
The jivas are reflected counterparts (pratibimbamsa) of Brahman
(Visnu). The bodies of the jivas, eternally present in Vaikuntha, the
celestial abode of Visnu, are transcendental (aprakrta). Hence, they are
called unconditioned-reflected-counterparts (nirupadhika-pratibimbamsa)
of Visnu. The bodies of the jivas of the material world are matierial;
therefore, they are called conditioned-reflected-counterparts
(sopadhika-pratibimbamsa) of Visnu.
(i) Plurality of selves: Madhva holds the doctrine of multiplicity
of selves. The basis for this is the intrinsic diversity of their
essences, which he shows to be "inevitable presupposition of the theory of
karma". It is accepted that the inequalities o f individual equipment and
endowment are regulated by ones pastlife and its karma. But, by its very
nature, the karma theory would be powerless to explain the why of such
inequalities, in the remotest past, without recourse to the hypothesis of
an intrin sic peculiarity (anadi visesa) that is uncaused. It is this
anadivisesa or svabhavabheda says Madhva, that distinguishes one soul
from another. This is the decisive contribution which Madhva has made to
the interpretation of the problem of life and its diversitis. He has thus
gone beyond the principle of karma, unerringly, to the " svabhavabheda" (
intrinsic or essential differences in the nature of the beings).
Similarly, the uniqueness of each individual experience, which forms the
content of per sonality, is sufficient reason, according to Madhva, for
the acceptanc of jiva-bahutva-vada (plurality of souls) and the
distinctiveness of each individual.
The theory of svarupabheda of souls elaborated by Madhva is, thus,
the only solution of the problem of plurality of selves, their freedom and
free will.
(ii) Tripartite classification of souls: Madhvas doctrine of the
Soul insists not only upon the distinctiveness of each soul but also upon
an intrinsic gradation among them based on varying degrees of knowledge,
power, and bliss. This is known as tarat amya or svarupataratamya,
which comes out all the more clearly in the released state, where the
souls realize their true status. Jiva-traividhya or tripartite
classification of "unreleased souls" into (1) muktiyogya (salvable), (2)
nitya-samsarin ( ever-transmigrating) and (3) tamoyogya (damnable) are
the allied doctrines of svarupataratamya of souls. This theory of
Madhva, is intended to justify and reconcile the presence of evil with
divine perfection.
Sri Madhva also speaks about the intrinsic differences existing
among the "released" souls. Hiranyagarbha among the released (and in
samsara too) occupying a privileged position as jivottama. His accepts
innate distinction among (released) souls into dev a, rsi (pitr, pa) and
naras. The devas are sarva-prakasa (fit to realize God as pervasive),
the sages are antahprakasaand the rest bahihprakasa.
The doctrine of intrinsic gradation among souls would follow as a
matter of course, once the principle of their plurality is admitted. Many
philosophical topics related to the law of karma, the problem of good and
evil, behaviour of free-will displayed i n the case of individual jivas
etc. can be solved only by the acceptance of the above theories of Sri
Madhva.
The recognition of special class of souls called nityasuris (as
in the system of Ramanuja) and the class called nityasamsarins will be
inexplicable without the acceptance of an intrinsic gradation of souls
into ordinary and "elect" and so on. The hig her position of sesitva
assigned to "Sri" in respect of nityasuris also points to a natural
gradation among souls. Similarly the existence of nityamuktas like
Visvaksena, Garuda, Ananta etc. who always remain free from samsara
(accepted by the Visistadvat ins) and the high place assigned to Brahma
among the gods (by Vedic and Puranic literature) are to be highlighted in
this connection as their spititual excellence and superiority over other
souls.
Gods and men are not equal in their basic nature and powers, or in
the innate tendencies for good or bad, which determine their future
development. The doctrine of intrinsic gradation of souls is thus a
resoned and reasonable hypothesis of human nature a nd destiny, suggested
by the moral law and supported by reason, revelation and experience.
Madhva holds that it can not be satisfactorily accounted for the presence
and continuation of evil in a world created and ruled by a most perfect
Being unless it is taken to be natural to some as goodness is to others.
Without such a fundamental division of human nature, the disparities of
life reflected in the seemingly unfair distribution of pleasure and pain
and oportunities for moral growth are not satisactorily explained. The law
of karma cannot satisfy the quest for an ultimate explanation of such
bewildering enexplicabilities. It cannot explain why given two
alternatives of good or evil, certain persons show a marked preference or
tendency towards the one and others to the opposite. Moral worth,
knowledge, works, experience, heredity, opportunities, culture - none of
these explanatons of diversity solves the riddle pushed to its staring
point; The final solution can only be found in the ingerent nature of bei
ngs.
Madhva and his commentators have cited many texts from the Vedic
and post-Vedic literature ( from Gita 16.3, 5, 6, 18, 20; 8.2; Bhag.
6.14.5; Isa. Up 3 etc.), in support of the acceptance of the traividhya
among jivas who are entangled within the samsara . An intrinsic divergence
of nature and faith into sattvika, rajasa and tamasa which is rooted
in the core of individual nature (dehinam svabhavaja) as stated in the
Gita, is the ultimate basis of this theory according to Madhva. This
theory is deve loped from the doctrine of trividha-sraddha in the Gita.
The term sattvika, rajasa, and tamasa are applied to the jivas in their
tripartite classification, according to Madhva, ha reference to their
basic nature of Caitanya going beyond the play of prakrt i nad its gunas:
"yo yac chraddhah sa eva sah" (Gita 17.3). This is clear from Madhvas
comment on the above verse, where he interprets the term "sattvanurupa" as
"cittanurupa".
(iii) Self-luminosity of souls: The individual soul, as a sentient
being, is admitted by Madhva to be self-luminious (svaprakasa). It is
not merely of the form of knowledge (jnanasvarupa) but is a knower
(jnatr). The conception of self as a conscio us personality is the same
as it is in respect of God, expect for the fact that even the
self-luminosity of the jiva is dependent on the Supreme, which makes
bondage possible.
Jagat:
Madhva admits the reality of the world experience on the basis of
perceptual, rational and scriptural grounds. The material universe,
according to Madhva, is neither a transformation (parinama) of Brahman
nor a production. It is merely an actualization of what is in the womb of
matter and souls by the action of Brahman. The creation of the universe is
a continuous process - a constant dependence of the world on the Supreme
for all its determinations.
Madhvas theory of the constitution of matter and the evolution of
the world is based on the sankhya metaphysics of Upanisads, the Epics
and Puranas. He quotes profusely from Mahabharata, the Bhagavata and other
Puranas and other Puranas and from the v ast literature of the
Pancaratras.
He accepts the doctrine of evolution of matter (prakrti) as a
follower of the Epic Sankhya. He accepts prakrti as eternal insentient
primordial stuff dependent on Brahman on the authority of Upanisadic, Epic
and Puranic Sankhya cosmology. It is directly and indirectly the material
cause (upadhana karana) of the world. It is the direct material cause of
time and the three qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas and indirectly of
mahat, ahankara etc. It is both eternal and pervasive; but not unlimited.
The three gunas are supposed to be differentiated at the begining of
creation, in the ratio of 4:2:1. The evolution of other forms of matter
takes place on account of the disturbance in their equipose which gives
rise to the 24 principles commonly recognized, viz. mahat, ahamkara,
buddhi, manas, ten sensory organs, five sense-objects and five great
elements. Mahat is the first and finest evolute of matter and energy.
Ahankara is the principle of individuation, buddhi that of discrimination,
and manas of thoug ht. The principle of ahamkara is divided into three
classes of vaikarika, taihjasa, and tamasa. From taijasa the ten sense
organs are produced, and the five sense objects (visayas) and the
elements are the products of tamasa-ahamkara. The tanmatras st and for
qualitatively distinct and irreducible sense-qualities with a definite
leaning towards their appropriate objects.
These 24 evolutions of prakrti are the constituents of the
microcosm and the macrocosm of the entire brahmanda. Madhva gives a proper
reorientation to this theory of material evolution by linking it up with a
systematic hierarchy of presiding deities fro m top to bottom. It is under
the constant supervision and guidance of these "Abhimani-devatas" (or
"Tattvabhimanins") that all material transformations and psychophysical
functions are carried on. The Supreme Brahman itself ultimately behing all
these act ivities and of each and every one of them.
The 3 forms of matter, viz. sattva, rajas and tamas, are specially
controlled by the 3 aspects of cetana prakrti, viz. Sri, Bhu and Durga.
Involution (dissolution) takes place by the merger of the effects
in their causes in the reverse order of evolution. This applies to the
tattvabhimani-devas also, both in samsara and in release.
Bondage (of jivas in samsara ):
Madhva points out that the reason for the bondage of the souls is
due to the divine will of the Supreme. Even though the bonds and
impurities of the souls are not their essential nature (svarupa), the
bonds of the souls are real. He gives a very purpos eful explanation of
the rationale behind Gods putting the souls in bondage and through the
necessary process of transmigration. Madhva calls his theory of the origin
of bondage as "svabhava-ajnana vada" or the theory of the souls ignorance
of their own true nature and of their dependence on the Supreme Brahman.
Madhva contends that even though the jiva is a self-luminious being,
still, it is not inconceivable that he should be subject to ignorance of
his own true nature and of the nature of God and of h is true relation to
Him, as he is a dependent and finite being. Since jivas, by definition,
"dependent" and also endowed with aspects (sa-visesa) it is very
reasonably contendented that while "some aspects" of the self (such as his
existence) are "not o bscured" yet others like the manifestation or
experience of its svarupananda (essential bliss) "remain obscured" in
samsara. Thus bondage is of the nature of ignorance.
As jivas nature is one of knowledge (jnanasvarupa), this
ignorance which, in spite of his self-luminosity (svaprasatva) , is able
to obscure a portion of that knowledge etc., of his own nature and of God
cannot be treated as penetrating his very nat ure. Yet, if it is external
to him, how does it obscure his svarupa, at least in some respects? To
explain this knotty point, Madhva introduces the will of God or his
inscrutable power (acintyadbhutasakti) which is also called by the name
of maya (or His maya) of which the entanglement in prakrti is only next
stage.
Thus, according to Madhva, the obscuration of the soul leading to
bondage is, in the last analysis, to referred to the inscrutable power of
God, who actuates the latent power of prakrti known by various names such
as maya and avidya in the sastras. Thoug h it is in the nature of maya to
obscure, yet the intervention of the Lord is "necessary" for its
functioning as a principle of obscuration, in so far as prakrti and its
powers are insentient (jada) and therefore "asvatantra" (incapable of
independent ini tiative). This obscuration of the essential nature of
jivas cannot be ascribed due to the influence of kama, karma, etc. alone;
for these are themselves the effects of earlier causes and thus are
"dependent principles" and there is no reason why the soul should have
succumbed to their attraction, surrendering his self-luminosity. In any
case, they would not be an adequate explanation of the obscuration of the
self, felt even in susupti and pralaya, when there is no operation of kama
or karma, vasanas, etc . Hence, it is obivious that there is some other
principle (over and above all these) that is preventing the self from
realizing its true nature, in full, here and now. This is the principle of
prakrti (jada) which presses down jivas from beginningless et ernity and
obscures their natures at the will of the Lord and not by its own power,
as already explained. Thus, Madhva finds the ultimate explanation of the
bondage of souls in the power of prakrti controlled by the inscrutable and
mysterious will of God. This is in complete accord with the views of
great theistic scriptures like the Gita (7.14), about origin of bondage.
Sadhana:
Since the souls bondage is, in the last analysis, to be referred
to the Divine will obscuring the intrinsic self-luminosity of jivas, its
removal and the illumination of the souls is also ascribed to the Divine
will, in the ultimate analysis, in Madhva s system.
[But, Madhva on the basis of scritures (Brahma-sutra 2.3.33)
ascribes jiva the title of "doer" or karta. He maintains that the human
soul is the real agent in all its actions eventhogh he is not an
absolutely independent agent. The jiva derives his abi lity to do things,
metaphysically, from the creator. For, God merely "enables" the jiva to
pursue a couse of action, not arbitrarily, but in relation to his former
life and disires. He does not "interfere" with the jivas decision in any
way. He sustains but never constrains (Gita 18.63). The jiva chooses out
of his free will a particular line of action for good or for bad with
sufficient foreknowledge of its moral worth and has himself to thank for
the consequences. He cannot, therefore, blame anyone, le ast of all God,
for the unpleasant consequences of his acts, should he have chosen
wrongly.]
The need for sadhanas follows from the very fact that the bondage
of souls in samsara has been continuing from time immemorial. This bondage
is continuing because of transmigration of souls. The aim of metaphysical
inquiry is the attainment of release th rough Divine grace. Therefore one
has naturally to think of the means of earning it. The sastras describe
them as leading to one another, in the following order: freedom from
worldy attachment (vairagya), devotion to God (bhakti),
sravana(study), m anana (reflection), nididhyasana (meditation) and
Saksatkara (direct realization).
Vairagya is defined as the non-attachment to the body and bodily
pleasures and cravings. This is the first step and primary requisite of a
true aspirant. It constitutes the essence of spiritual life.
Sravana is defined as the acquisition of the sense of the sacred
texts under the instruciton of competent teachers. It dispels ignorance
about the subject-matter (ajnananivrtti).
Manana is the systematic employment of the canons of textual
interpretation and logical examination with a view to arriving at a firm
conviction that the final interpratation of the sastras thus arrived at is
alone the correct and unimpeachable one. Manana removes doubts (samsaya)
and misapprehension (viparyaya) and confirms the true import of the
sastras (paroksatattvaniscaya).
Nididhyasana or dhyana (continious meditation) leads to direct
realization (darsana). Sravana and manana are thus subsidiary
(angabhuta) nididhyasana which is the chief means (angi) if
saksatkara.
Role of guru: Madhva discusses the importance of a ideal guru and
the importance of his grace in the final flowering of the spiritual
personality of the aspirant (sadhaka). He emphasizes the point that
instruction and guidance of a competent guru and h is grace (prasada)
are absolutely necessary for sravana and manana to bear fruit. He further
says that of the two viz., individual effort and the grace of the guru,
the latter is to be deemed the more powerful factor and therefore
indispensable for one s spiritual realization. The emphasis of
guruprasada doesnot mean that individual effort and the deserts of the
aspirant do not count. They are the foundations of ones spiritual
progress; but guruprasada is the crowing point of this development.
A seeker is allowed to change his guru if he secures another with
a superior spiritual illumination, provided the latter is able and
inclined to impart the full measure of grace and illumination that may be
required for the self-realization of the discip le. Where both the gurus
happen to be of equal merit and disposition to grant the full measure of
their grace, qualifiying for illumination to the aspirant, the permission
of the earlier guru shall have to be obtained before receiving instruction
from the other one. Different Spiritual Disciplines:
The most prominent forms of Spiritual discipline are those going
by the names of karmamarga, jnanamarga and bhaktimarga.
Karma yoga, according to Madhva is the enlightened spiritual
activity (niskamam jnanapurvam karma) by all, which cannot be binding in
its consequences. On the basis of Gita he establishes that it is neither
pravrtti marga (faithful performance of the round of Vedic sacrifices
and ritualistic rites prescribed by the Srutis and Smrtis with the
expectation of their rewards in this or in the next world and the
adherence to the duties of varna and asrama) nor nivrtti marga
(abandonment of all karma) but= performance of karma in a spirit of
devotion and vairagya is more important. Even this type of performing
niskamakarma is not to be admitted as anything more than an accessory to
spiritual realization. It is to be pursued for the purpose of acquiring
mental purufication. The reason why karma cannot be treated as an
independent means of release is that it is by nature, irrepressibly found
to be enexhaustible by the enjoyment of fruits.
The help of jnana is, therefore, indispensable to destroy or
neutralize the latent effects of past karma (Gita 4.37). Such a power of
destroying the accumulated load of past karma, or rendering it nugatory is
ascribed to the actual vision (aparoksajnana ) of God, through dhyana
(meditation). Madhva, therefore, regards enlightened activity
(niskamakarma) merely as contributing to such knowledge through
vairagya. Madhva is, thus, clear that disinterested activity carried on in
a spirit of devotion t God is a powerful incentive to the acquisition of
knowledge which alone is the highest means of realease. Karma and dhyana
and others are just accessories to it.
Conception of bhakti: Madhva has given a unique place to Divine
grace in his system, in making it the ultimate cause of self-realization.
To attain the grace of the Divine the sadhaka has to appease the Lord.
This can only be done by bhakti as the deepes t attachment to the Lord,
deep-rooted and based on a clear understanding of His greatness and
majesty.
Bhakti is, thus, the steady flow of deep attachment to God,
impregnable by any amount of impediments and transcending the love of our
own selves, our kith and kin, cherished belongings, etc. and fortified by
a firm conviction of the transcendent majesty and greatness of God as the
abde of all perfections and free from all blemish and by an unshakable
conviction of the complete metaphysical dependence of everything else upon
Him. When one is flooded by such an intensive and all-absorbing love he
gets comp letely immersed in blissful contemplation of Him and is lost to
all his surroundings. Such bhakti is necessary to manifest the natural and
intrinsic relationship of pratibimbatva of the souls to God, which lies
dormant in the state of bondage.
Since the function of bhakti is to manifest the true relation of
jiva to Brahman, it must naturally be properly informed about that true
relation, which presupposes a right knowledge of the majesty and greatness
of God as the one svatantra. Hence, bhakti has to be enriched by study,
reflection and concentration. Bhakti is, thus, not a mere wave of
sentimentalism or emotionalism, to Madhva. It is the outcome of patient
study (sravana) and deep reflection. Madhva also demands a high degree
of moral perfe ction from the true devotee of God. He affirms that there
can be no ture devotion to God without a real sense of moral purity,
sincerity of purpose and detachment to worldly pleasures. One cannot serve
two masters. True devotion to God would impossible wi thout the
cultivation of a natural distaste for the pleasures of the world. It is
one of the constituent elements of true devotion. Acara or purity of life,
in all respects is thus the only means of true devotion and knowledge.
Devotion without such purit y will be a travesty. Complete control of the
passions of the flesh, calmness of mind, impartiality of conduct and love
of God are emphasized by Madhva as the prerequisites of devotion and
knowledge. This positive approch to God in its final accomplishmen t i.e.,
love of God free from all traces of erotic manifestations, which dominate
in certain forms of North Indian Vaisnavism like Jayadeva, Caitanya and
Vallabha. Madhvas conception of bhakti avoids these emotional excesses
and remains at its exalted in tellectual and spiritual level of firm
philosophic devotion to the Supreme Lord of the universe who is to be
worshipped with loving attachments as the bimba of all pratibimbas
(jivas). But it is no on that account lacking in intensity of fervour and
feeli ng. For Madhva has recognized in the clearest terms that bhakti is
in essence an ineffable blending of the emotion and the intellect. He
gives expression to the intensity of his love of God in its sublime and
rapturous aspects in the opening and concludin g stanzas of his works.
The possiblities of erotic devotion, as a means of contacting the Divine,
are not unknown to him. In his view, kama-bhakti or erotic devotion is the
special privilege of "apsarases and ought not to be practiced by others".
Madhva speaks of 3 different types of devotees: (1) uttama
bhaktas, (2) madhyama and (3) adhama, according to the nature and
intensity of devotion characteristic of them.
Taratamya in bhakti: Taratamya or gradational approcach in the
practice of bhakti is a necessary element of the doctrine of bhakti as
propounded by Madhva. The devotional homage to the gods and the sages in
the spiritual hierarchy is not a matter of co urtesy. It is a "must". The
devas occupy special position in the government of Gods universe as
tattvabhimanis with special cosmic jurisdiction delegated to them. The
role of these devas on the implementation of the sadhanas by human beings
have been br ought in Madhvas commentary on the Upanisads and from the
fading sources of Pancaratra and other literature. On the basis of these
materials, he holds that devotion to God depends crucially on the grace of
the devas who are His first greatest devotees. T hey are the highest order
of jnanayogis and our direct superior, protectors, guides and gurus. We
cannot think of God without their grace. It they who inspire our minds
along right lines and turn them Godward and enable us to know and worship
Him by their presiding activity over the sense organs, mind, buddhi etc.
and bring our sadhanas to fruition.
Stages of bhakti: Madhva distinguishes 3 stages of bhakti: (1)
that a which "precedes" paroksajnana (meditate knowledge of the Deity),
(2) one that "follows" it, and (3) a third that comes "after direct
realization" (aparoksajnana) and wins the absolut e grace
(atyarthaprasada) of the Lord. It this final stage of bhakti that fully
manifests, by the grace of God, the true relationship that exists between
the jiva and Brahman and completes the fulfilment of realization viz. the
full manifestation and en joyment of the intrinsic bliss of ones 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 Madhvas system there are two distinct
phases of bhakti, one operating at the sadhana or "prepara tory level" and
the other sadhya or the fundamental level of moksa itself. Pleased with
the initial bhakti of the jivas, the Lord bestows on them firm knowledge
of His nature and attributes. He then reveals Himself. Thereafter He
inspires them with still more intensive devotion and after showing Himself
to the bhaktas He cuts the knot of their prakrtic bondage. In the released
state also, the jivas remain under the Lords 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 souls
"surrender". "It is Divine grace that plays the most decisive role in the
final deliverance of the souls, according to Madhva". Not by karma, or
jnana or even bhakti can remove the veil of ignorance w ithout the grace
of the Lord withdrawing His obscuration of jiva.
Aparoksa-jnana or God-Realization: In this final stage of sadhana
the sadhaka receives a direct vision of the Supreme Being. The sadhaka is
face to face with the object of his meditation and intuits the Divine
Form, whichis his archetype (bimba). This is technically termed
bimbaparoksa, which is the highest form of spiritual perception without
which no one can hope to be released. However this final stage of vision
of the Lord is different from vision of dhyana wherein the form of Brahman
is built up i n the mind of the sadhaka. In dhyana one sees only the
reflection of Brahman in the citta. By its presence in the reflection
the Supreme Brahman confers the fruit of meditation on the aspirant. The
meditation of this reflected form of Brahman, is like t he worship of an
image. It leads (gradually) to the actual vision of the Lord, by His own
grace.
Aparoksa-jnana is something which by its nature, defies any more
explict description. It is a flash-like revelation of the Supreme at the
furtiom of a long and arduous process of sravana, manana, and
nididhyasana, in the fulness of absolute self-su rrendering devotion to
the Lord, as our bimba. Ultimately, it is He that must choose to reveal
Himself, pleased by the hungering love of the soul. The pratibimba (soul)
must turn in and see his bimba in himself. This is aparoksa.
After aparoksa state: Aparoksa marks the preliminary stage of
release. The journeys end is now fairly in sight; but not yet fully
attained. The aparoksajnani, in Madhvas system corresponds to the
"jivan-mukta" of other schools. But there is no destruct ion of avidya or
prakrtic bondage yet. To the aparoksajnanin, the prospect of moksa is now
"assured". But until the subtle body of sixteen kalas, known as
"linga-sarira", is disintegrated, the jiva is not freed from prakrtic
bondage. This comes at the end of the working out of a portion of his
"prarabdha-karma" (that portion of the accumulated load of all past karma,
which has begun already to go through) by "bhoga" (not necessarily
pleasant). Madhva holds out also a very assuring prospect of the possible
"upakarda" mitigation of the effects of some portion of "even" the
prarabdha karma by the grace of God and release in its full sense speeded
up. The term prarabdha karma includes obviously the good and the bad
(punya and papa). Madhva introduces a su btler distinction in the
former, from the point of view of aparoksa-jnanin, as ista (desirable)
and anista (undesirable). The former is what conduces to deeper and
deeper manifestations of innate bliss in moksa. The latter is whatever is
likely to pro long the onset of complete release.
Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that final release should
take place at the destruction (by death) of that particular body in and
through which aparoksa-jnana was attained. It depends on prarabdha-karma.
If its effects have been workd out (in that b ody) there is no more delay;
but if they have not been, then he must pass through some more lives to
work them out. This is the position of sastras on the point. But since law
of karma is not independent of the Lords will, Madhva interposes a saving
cl ause in respect of Gods will, which nothing can limit. This may be
called the "Vetoing power" (upamarda) of the Lord excercised in His own
grace.
Here, the "upamarda" or devitalizing of the effects of prarabdha
karma refers to all evil karma and such of the punyakarma (or
punya-prarabdha) that will delay or retard moksa, by producing agreeable
dffects for enjoyment in future lives. But such punya, as will enhance the
anandanubhava in moksa, is "credited to the account" of the
aparoksa-jnanin. This emphasizes that nothing can possibly stand against
Gods will. Though normally not interfering with the law of karma, there
are occasionsin the career s of souls when He benevolently intervenes to
scoth individual karma as such, when He feels that it has had its day.
this again brings out vividly the place and importance of the concept of
Grace in the Theism of Madhva. This is how Madhva understands the
statement that God grants His grace to man and it is through grace alone
that we can deserve to be saved from samsara. To get Gods grace upon
oneself is greater than to know God intellectually. bhakti is emotional
sublimation in God. When intellectual p erception melts into devotion we
have bhakti. When such final stage of bhakti is reached, after
aparoksa-vision, God intervenes to neutralize a portion of prarabdha even,
and ushers in final moksa.
Mukti:
The doctorine of salvation is determined by the conception of of
the nature of souls and God in any philosophical thought. Since Madhva
establishes bhakti, not as a means to an end, but as an end itself, it
follows that the relation between the individua l soul and the Supreme
Being is not something that is snapped in release. For, this relation is
not something that is extrinsic to the nature of the soul but something
that is rooted in the very nature and being (svarupa) of the soul. Its
destruction wo uld mean destruction of the jiva. It is a unique relation,
a spiritual bond which is indestructible. There fore mukti is merely the
shaking off what is extrinsic to ones nature and reposing in ones own
intrinsic nature. The intrinsic spiritual relation between the human
spirit and God is so dynamic in its magnetism that the attraction of the
latter becomes more fully manifested in release than in samsara. Indeed,
it breaks through and finds expression there in a thousand ways which are
beyond our unders tanding and analysis from here.
Madhva maintains that the realization of truth does not mean the
abolition of the plurality of life or the peresonality of selves, but only
the removal of the false sense of separateness and independence which is
at the root of samsara. The attributes of the jiva is inviolable in the
same sense as the atman itself is indestructible. Moksa would not be worth
having, if atman does not survive as a self-luminious entity there.
Therefore Madhva lays great stress on the survival of every individual
personalit y, as such , in moksa (muktirhitva anyatha rupam svarupena
vyavasthitih).
In the positive aspect of the view of moksa, Madhva holds it as a
state of supreme bliss. The first and foremost fact about moksa is that it
is accepted, by common consent, as the highest "purusartha" of man. For
this reason, it must be a state of unallo yed bliss; and this bliss must
be "manifested" i.e., capable of being actually felt and enjoyed with a
full consciousness of being "so enjoyed". This would natuarlly presuppose
the survival of the one who is to enjoy the experiences of this blessed
state.
The supreme bliss in moksa is not a stagnant state. Madhva, says
that there is scope for activity and full play of capabilities for
everyone according to ones ablities. Some of the released may rest in the
contemplation of their own blessedness, like Ad vaitic brahman. Some may
contrast their present with their past and feel thankful for their
deleverance. They may adore the majesty of God and sing His Praises or
worship Him in a thousand ways. Some may offer sacrifices, if they wish to
- the only differ ence being that "nothing is obligatory there". There is
no "prescribed round of activites" or code of conduct in moksa, which
means there is unlimited scope for spontaneous, creative work of every
kind.
Ananda taratamya in moksa: or a hierarchic gradation in the
nature, range, quality, intensity etc., of svarupa-ananda or innate
bliss enjoyed by the released souls, is a logical deduction from the
theory of svarupa-bheda of souls accepted by Madhva. Si nce moksa is only
the discovery of ones selfhood and experiencing what is there in it
(muktirhitva.......), there is no possibility of exchanging ones
experience with anothers or its transference to another, whether wholly
or in part. Each released sou l rests fully satisfied (purna-trpta) in
the enjoyment of "his own svarupa-ananda". Madhva uses the argument based
on the obvious disparity in the sadhanas of different orders of beings to
reinforce the docrine of anandataratamya in moksa.
There is natural gradation among the released souls as also
disparity in their sadhanas. The difference in the nature and quality of
sadhanas must necessarily have a relationto the result. The existence of
such a gradation in moksa is established by reas on and revelation. Just
as vessels of different sizes, the rivers and the Ocean are "full" of
water according to their respective capacities, even so, in respect of the
jivas, from ordinary human beings to Brahmadeva, their fulness of bliss
attained throu gh sadhanas is to be understood with reference to their
varying (intrinsic) capacities The sadhanas practiced by them such as
bhakti, jnana etc., are nothing more than an expression of their intrinsic
potentialities, which are the core of their being - go ing back to their
beginningless eternity. Those with limited capacities are satisfied with
limited bliss and those with comparatively greater capacities reach
fulfilment with still more. But each ones satisfaction would be "full"
and "complete" in itself - having reached its saturation point.
