[Prev][Next][Index]
Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on Madhva
Greetings.
I tried to post this article, or a close variant of it, several days ago,
but the posting seems to have been gobbled up by some rogue newsserver on
the net. If, however, that ancient posting makes a late appearance, I
would like to apologize for the duplication.
Recently, Mani Varadarajan <mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> brought to my
notice the fact that the Encyclopaedia Britannica contains some poorly
researched and otherwise pestiferous prose on Madhva, his life, and
school. The E.B. is available on the WWW at http://www.eb.com but only to
subscribers; I am not one, and with Mani's permission, I make some
comments here on the portion that he has kindly forwarded to me.
If you would rather take in, on a first reading or even later, the whole
of the E.B.'s stuff, without being interrupted by my comments, just ignore
all material that is not set off by the combo '+>' mark. Otherwise, you
can read both the quoted prose and my comments on the same pass. You will
then in effect be reading the E.B.'s entry at the same time as I, and can
then compare notes with me.
+>Britannica Online Help
+>
+>Madhva,
+>
+>[Index] also called ANANDATIRTHA, or PURNAPRAJQA (b. c. 1199,
+>Kalyanpur, near Udipi, Karnataka, India--d. c. 1278, Udipi), Hindu
+>philosopher, exponent [Index] of Dvaita (q.v.; dualism, or belief in a
+>basic difference in kind between God and individual souls). His
+>followers are called Madhvas.
The second name of the "also called" type would perhaps be better written
as 'Purnaprajna' rather than what has been offered. I would transliterate
it as Puurnapragnya. Failure to indicate stress on the first syllable of
'Maadhvas' can lead to incorrect pronunciation and understanding.
Madhva's school emphasizes the *five* differences, not just the one
between the Paramaatman and the jiivas. The five differences are
indicated by the Paramopanishad verse that I quoted in a posting a few
weeks ago, but which perhaps bears repetition:
|| Jiiveshvara bhidaa chaiva jadeshvara bhidaa tathaa ||
|| jiiva-bhedo mithaschaiva jada-jiiva bhidaa tathaa ||
|| mithashcha jada-bhedo-ayam prapancho bheda-panchakaha ||
"The difference between the jiiva and Iishvara, and the difference
between the jada and Iishvara; the difference between various jiivas, and
the difference between jada and jiiva; the difference between various
jada, these five differences constitute the universe."
There is certainly a history for denoting Madhva's doctrine as Dvaita,
instead of by the preferred term Tatvavaada, but doing so is certainly
not well-advised, because it sometimes leads to the incorrect conclusion
that Madhva's school is just the exact opposite of Advaita in every
sense, and also because it may lead to the incorrect notion that Madhva
emphasizes just one difference rather than five.
+>Born into a Brahman family, his life in many respects parallels the
+>life of Jesus Christ. Miracles attributed to Christ in the New
+>Testament were also attributed to Madhva; for example, as a youth he
+>was discovered by his parents after a four-day search discoursing
+>learnedly with the priests of Vishnu (Visnu); later, on a pilgrimage to
+>the sacred city of Varanasi (Benares), he is reputed to have walked on
+>water, repeated the miracle of the loaves of bread, calmed rough
+>waters, and become a "fisher of men." It is suggested that he may have
+>been influenced during his youth by a group of Nestorian Christians who
+>were residing at Kalyanpur.
The paragraph above fails to tell us one important fact -- that the only
authentic source for information about Madhva's life is the hagiography
'Sumadhva Vijaya,' written by Naaraayana Pandita, the son of Madhva's
contemporary and close disciple Trivikrama Pandita. One who reads
something in an encyclopaedia may wish to know where to find more
information about the subject being read about, and it would have been as
well to mention this fact.
The use of the spelling 'Brahman' rather than 'braahmana' or 'brahmana'
can lead to a confounding of the caste-name with the Lord, or with the
nirguna-Brahman of Advaita. I do not know much about the Biblical story
about Christ and the loaves of bread, but I do know enough to know that
no such incident is reported about Madhva, who was also not "found after
a four-day search," as a youth. Madhva declared at a very young age that
he would become a sanyaasi, and upon noting his father's distress at this
announcement of intention, promised to wait until another son was born to
his parents. Madhva became a sanyaasi by the age of eleven, and most
assuredly did not have any contact with his parents by the time he grew
up to be a youth. I cannot think of the Sanskrit equivalent for the
phrase "fisher of men," and have my doubts about the claim made thereby.
And of course, the speculation about Madhva's contact with the Nestorian
(what group is this exactly, btw?) Christians is the sheerest idiocy, and
in any event does nothing to explain why Madhva's life "in many respects
parallels the life of Jesus Christ" (which it does not).
The incident where Madhva and some disciples walked on water occurred
while Madhva was on a pilgrimage to Badarikaashrama (not Varanasi, tho he
must have gone there as well). En route to the North, a flood-swollen
river had to be crossed, and on finding no bridge or boat handy to take
them across, Madhva asked his disciples to form a sort of human chain
with him at the lead, with each one holding on to the anga-vastra (cloth
worn over the upper body) of the previous, and the whole group then
crossed the river, walking on top of the water's surface. A Muslim ruler
was encamped on the other side of the river, and his men were astonished
at the sight of the group walking across the river in this fashion. The
ruler then met Madhva, and was so impressed by him that he offered Madhva
half of his kingdom. Madhva declined, needless to say.
The incident where Madhva "calmed rough waters" (it would be better to
say "rescued a ship from rough seas") occurred near Malpe beach, near
Udupi and Mangalore, and quite, quite far from Varanasi. There are other
special incidents or miracles associated with Madhva's life, which have
not been mentioned, perhaps because even one so asinine as the E.B.'s
researcher(s) of Madhva could not possibly compare them to anything
written in the Bible. For instance, Madhva is said to have freed his
father from the clutches of a loan shark; to have once eaten a whole cut
of bananas at one sitting; claimed to his guru Akshobhya Tiirtha that the
very first line of the work 'Ishta Siddhi' had 30 errors, and then proved
his claim; demonstrated the power of some Vedic hymns; displaced a
boulder weighing tons that was obstructing some construction activity --
an inscription made on the boulder at the time ("Shrimadaanandatiirthena
eka-hastena sthaapitaa shila" -- boulder [dis]placed by Shrimad Ananda
Tiirtha using one hand) can still be seen.
It is not necessary, of course, that one believe all, or even any, of the
miracles claimed, in order to get a proper understanding of Madhva's work
and significance. Madhva himself does not ever call himself a prophet,
and emphatically denounces the idea that one can go by the words of
prophets about whom miracles are claimed. Even so, it is of note that
such incidents are said to have occurred in Madhva's life, and even if
they are not believed, the fact is that whoever researched Madhva for the
E.B. did an exceedingly poor job, and presented facts with egregious
omissions and distortions.
+>Madhva set out to refute the nondualistic [Index] Advaita philosophy of
+>[Index] Shankara (d. c. AD 750), who believed the individual self to be
+>a phenomenon and the absolute spirit (Brahman) the only reality. Thus,
+>Madhva rejected the venerable Hindu theory of [Index] maya
+>("illusion"), which taught that only spirituality is eternal and the
+>material world is illusory and deceptive. Madhva maintained that the
+>simple fact that things are transient and everchanging does not mean
+>they are not real.
Perhaps it is not my place to point out errors in the claims about
schools other than that of Madhva, but it seems to me that Advaita has
been grossly oversimplified and misstated -- it does not attempt to deny
the individual's experience of himself, as saying that Shankara "believed
the individual self to be a phenomenon" implies. It says, rather, that
whatever else the individual perceives, including the ethereal body, the
universe around, etc., are all 'vyaavahaarika satya,' or relative truths.
I also have my doubts about the date given for Shankara, which seems to
me to be off by several centuries, perhaps in keeping with the long-time
practice among some scholars of post-dating Indian history, in order to
make it seem recent and therefore of less significance. However, I leave
it to others more knowledgeable than me to correct the errors in the
claims about Shankara's time and doctrine.
The paragraph quoted also contradicts itself, because it first says that
according to the Advaita of Shankara, "the absolute spirit (Brahman) [is]
the only reality," and then says a few lines below, that "the venerable
Hindu theory of maya," presumably a sort of aliter for Advaita, says that
"only spirituality is eternal." And Madhva does not reject the word
'maayaa,' at all -- he simply uses it differently from Advaitis. In
Advaita, maayaa is something that causes the vyaavahaarika universe to be
perceived; Madhva says maayaa is the Lord's action that causes the jiiva
in samsaara to not perceive Him. In Advaita, after maayaa lapses, the
individual jiiva stops seeing the universe, and becomes Brahman, himself.
According to Madhva, after the influence of maaya is lost due to the
Lord's grace, the individual perceives the Lord, and attains mukti.
+>Departing from orthodox Hinduism in a number of ways, he was one of a
+>small minority of Hindu thinkers who have believed in eternal
+>damnation, offering a concept of heaven and hell to his followers. He
+>nevertheless offered a third alternative, a Hindu purgatory of endless
+>transmigration of souls (reincarnation, or rebirth). Madhva's cult
+>outlawed temple prostitutes and offered figures made of dough as a
+>substitute for blood sacrifices, and its adherents customarily branded
+>themselves on the shoulder with a multiarmed figure of Vishnu.
The use of "orthodox Hinduism" shows too-little understanding of India's
spiritual and intellectual history. During the last few millenia, several
different schools of thought have had their day in the sun there, and
have then diminished in strength or have even disappeared completely --
therefore, it is not proper to call any one of them orthodox. There have
been, for example, the Bauddha and the Jaina schools; the miimaamsaka
doctrines of Prabhaakara and Kumaara-ela Bhatta; the naiyaayika
(taarkika) and the vaisheshika doctrines, and of course, Advaita,
Vishishtaadvaita and Tatvavaada as well. Madhva himself says that all
these schools have always existed, just as all the jiivas always have.
Just as the jiiva exists in a disembodied and therefore unexpressed form
for some time, and is then active after a birth as an embodied, so also,
these schools exist in dormant form, and are brought to life by a
teacher, and are then active for a while before dying out again.
Madhva, who made no claims as a prophet would, also offered Shruti
evidence for his position that there are three classes of souls. I
unfortunately cannot remember any Shruti quotes, but what I can remember
is this verse from the Bhagavad Gita (XIV-18):
|| Uurdhvam gachhanti satvasthaa madhye tishthanti raajasaaha ||
|| jaghanya-guna-vrttisthaa adho gachhanti taamasaaha ||
This verse clearly speaks of three different kinds of souls, and mentions
a different fate for each kind.
Maadhvas, who should not, in my opinion, be referred to as "Madhva's
cult," are primarily known for the use of the uurdhva-pundra, a pair of
parallel vertical lines centered on the forehead (I believe even ISKCON
devotees wear the uurdhva-pundra). They have never "customarily branded
themselves on the shoulder with a multiarmed figure of Vishnu," and do
not do so now. Some scholars have argued that Madhva created the
uurdhva-pundra, but the truth is that it was known and referred to in the
literature even in the centuries before him, as a symbol showing that the
person wearing it was entitled to a study of the Vedas; what Madhva did
was to allow it to be worn even by persons not born braahmanas, and
re-assert its value as a spiritual symbol; he even stated that a forehead
not having the uurdhva-pundra in place is "smashaana-sadrsha" (alike in
appearance to a funeral-ground).
In addition to the uurdhva-pundra, Madhva's disciples are supposed to
wear symbols representing the four objects the Lord holds in His hands:
chakra (disk), shankha (conch), gadaa (mace), and padma (lotus). I
believe even devotees from other sampradaayas are known to wear these
symbols, and the practice of branding them on to one's body, which is
again not unique to Maadhvas, is due to the notion that one should not be
separated from the Lord's symbols for any reason, even for a short while;
branding them on one's skin makes them wash-proof, as it were.
+>During his lifetime, Madhva wrote 37 works in Sanskrit, mostly
+>commentaries on Hindu sacred writings and treatises on his own
+>theological system and philosophy. He insisted that knowledge is
+>relative, not absolute.
The "during his lifetime" is redundant, and the use of "in Sanskrit"
without the use of a universal adjective such as 'all' seems to suggest
that Madhva may have written works in other languages that are not
mentioned here. These merely show that the person who wrote the piece on
Madhva was as careless about his/her usage as about his/her research.
Madhva's works include commentaries on the prasthaana-traya (the triad of
Vedanta, consisting of the apowrusheya texts, the Brahma-suutra of
Baadaraayana aka Veda Vyaasa, and the Bhagavad Gita). In fact, Madhva
wrote two commentaries on the Brahma-suutra; one of them is called the
Anu-vyaakhyaana, and is the one most often read and cited. The other, a
mere four or so pages long, is called the An_u bhaashya (I use n_ in
place of n to indicate that the 'na' sound as in 'Gan_apati' is
appropriate). Madhva's commentary on the Mahaabhaarata is called the
Mahaabhaarata-taatparya-nirn_aya.
Independent works by Madhva include the Vishnu-tatva-vinirn_aya, a text
that starts from the very fundamentals, and goes on to establish Vishnu's
supremacy in no uncertain terms. This text is referred to in the Sumadhva
Vijaya as being akin to Arjuna, who was himself more than a match for a
whole army that included several renowned warriors, during the battle to
save Viraata's cows. Another work of great importance is the Pramaan_a
lakshan_a, which deals with the concept of pramaan_a, and which is a
wonderful exposition of epistemology. Other works by Madhva include the
Upaadhi-khandana, the Kathaa-lakshan_a, the Mithyaatva-anumaana-khandana,
etc.
+>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+>
+>Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved
+>
+>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+>Related Propaedia Topics:
+>
+>The age of bhakti (11th-19th century)
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
