Dvaita Vedanta

Madhva’s Vaisnava Theism

K R Paramahamsa

1
2
 Table of Contents
Page No

Preface 5

1. Dvaita System of Vedanta 7

2. Conginition 9
Introduction 9
Pratyaksa, Sense Perception 10
Anumana, Inference 12
Sabda, Word Testimony 13
3. Metaphysical Categories 15
General 15
Nature 16
Individual Soul (Jiva) 18
God 20

4. Purusartha, Human Goal 25

Purusartha, Human Goal 25
Sadhana, Means of Attainment 27

5. Evolution of Dvaita Thought 30

6. Madhva Hagiology 33

7. Works of Madhva–Sarvamula 35
An Outline 35
Gita Bhashya 38
Gita Tatparya 40
Sutra –Prasthana 42
General
Brahmasutra Bhashya
Anu Vyakhyana
Nyaya Vivarana
Anu Bhashya
Bhagavata Tatparya 48
Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya 49
Dasa-Prakaranas 52
Pramanalaksana
Kathalaksana
Upadhi Khandana
Prapanca-Mithyatvanumana Khandana
Mayavada Khandana
Tattva Samkhyanam
Tattva Viveka
Tattvoddyota
Visnu Tattva Nirnaya
Karma Nirnaya
Upanisad Bhashyas 59
General

3
 Isavasya Upanisad Bhashya
Kena or Talavakara Upanisad Bhashya
Katha Upanisad Bhashya
Mundaka Upanisad Bhashya
Prasna Upanisad Bhashya
Mandukya Upanisad Bhashya
Aitareya Upanisad Bhashya
Taittiriya Upanisad Bhashya
Brhadaranyaka Upanisad Bhashya
Chhandogya Upanisad Bhashya
Rigveda Bhashya 66
Stotras, and Works on Worship and Rituals 69

8. Jayatirtha 72
General 72
Works of Jayatirtha 73

9. Visnudasa 76

10. Vyasatirtha 79
General 79
Works of Vyasatirtha 80

11. Other Madhva Pontiffs 84

Vijayendratirtha
Vadirajatirtha
Narayanacarya
Vidyadhirajatirtha
Vyasatirtha
Vijayadhavajatirtha
Sudhindratirtha
Vidyadhisatirtha
Visvesvaratirtha
Raghavendratirtha
Brahmanyatirtha and Others

12. Haridasakuta 89

4
 Preface
Dualism, as understood in western philosophy, is a ‘theory which admits two
independent and mutually irreducible substances’. Samkhya Dualism answers to this
definition. But Madhva’s Dvaita, Dualism admits two mutually irreducible principles as
constituting Reality as a whole, but regards only one of them, God as independent, svatantra
and the other as dependent, paratantra. God, the Supreme Being is the One and Only
Independent Principle, and all finite reality comprising the prakrti, purusas, kala, karma,
svabhava, etc is dependent, paratantra. This concept of two orders of reality, tattvas, that is,
svatantra and paratantra is the keynote of the philosophy of Madhva. This is the highest
metaphysical and ontological classification in Madhva’s Dvaita Vedanta. Madhva insists on
a difference in status between the two principles, and makes one of them finite, paratantra
dependent completely on the other, svatantra for its being and becoming.

In Indian thought, Dvaita signifies a system of philosophy which posits more than one
fundamental metaphysical principle or category to explain the cosmos, or a fundamental
distinction between the human souls and the Supreme Being, for all time. Dvaita recognizes
the states of bondage and release as real states or experiences pertaining to the atman.
Madhva is categorical that our finite experiences of embodied existence and our efforts to
achieve freedom from bondage have both a real value and validity of their own, and are not
mere bubbles of avidya.

God, the Supreme Being is the Svantantra, the One and Only Independent Substance
and all else is dependent, paratantra. This dependence is metaphysical and fundamental to
the very being and becoming of the finite which can never outgrow it. The dependent reals
exist from eternity, but they do so, not in their own right, but on sufferance of the Supreme.
They are not despite of the Lord, but because of Him. They owe their very existence,
knowledge, activity, etc to Him. The Only Independent Real exists in Its own right and in the
highest sense of the term. The Supreme may well be and is, at times, referred to in the
scriptures as the One without a second, without any prejudice to the reality and subordinate
existence of the finite selves such as Prakrti. The finite selves are ‘naught as it were’.
Jayatirtha states that ‘scriptures depict the Brahman in diverse ways and from different
standpoints, all converging towards the one purpose, mahatatparya of expounding the
transcendent and immanent majesty of God Himself in the atman and in the world’. The
unity, sovereignty and independence of God are consistent with the claims of reason and
demands of metaphysics.

The English term Dualism does not adequately express the full content and depth of
meaning that Madhva has put into that term Dvaita. Even the Sanskrit term Dvaita does not
literally express more than the number of fundamental principles accepted. B.N.K.Sharma
suggests Svatantra-Advitiya-Brahmavada may be an appropriate designation for Madhva’s
system to convey directly the highest reach of its thought and its metaphysical ideology. The
only internal distinctions that are logically conceivable in the Brahman are those of attributes.
The adjunct svantantra serves to emphasize the transcendence of the Supreme over the other
reals, and Its immanence in them. It also lays emphasis on the primacy of the Supreme as the
para-siddhanta of Madhva’s thought, and the teachings about the finite as constituting the
apara-siddhanta, subsidiary truths. This distinguishes from the Nirvisesadvaita of Samkara
and the Visistadvaita of Ramanuja.

5
 According to Madhva, God is the creator, preserver, etc of the entire world of matter
and souls. World-experience is real. Souls are many and are dependent forever on the
Supreme. They are delivered from bondage by His grace. Salvation is a state of active
enjoyment of supreme felicity. Madhva quotes extensively the related Vedic hymns that
support these points of view.

Visnu is Madhva’s equivalent of the ‘God of religion’, the Brahman of the Vedanta
and the One Supreme Real, Ekam Sat of the Veda. He correlates the various descriptions of
Vedic gods in cosmic terms as the sarvanamavan, the Being who is diversely sung by
different names. He equates the Sarvanamavan with Visnu, in the etymological sense of the
term as the Being which is unlimited by time, space and auspicious attributes, vyapta. He
establishes, on the basis of Vedic hymns, that monotheism of Visnu is the true faith of Vedic
saints

Madhavacharya (Vidyaranya) designates the philosophy of Madhva as

Purnaprajnadarsana in his Sarvadarsanasamgraha.

6
 1. Dvaita System of Vedanta
The Dvaita system is designated tattva-vada as opposed to maya-vada. It argues for
the reality of the world. For it, the external world, the world of objects and situations that the
human mind experiences is real and objective. This tendency in philosophical thought is
characterized with realism. It champions the realistic standpoint in philosophy. Madhva
holds that realism taking the waking world as real is just commonsense. It is a natural bent of
the human mind and is intrinsically valid in the notion of svatah-pramanya. It has an
empirical basis, too. Our perceptual consciousness and all the superstructure of thought built
on that basis present the world as real. Bosanquet and G.E.Moore arrive at the same
conclusion of realism of the world.

Pluralism is its dominant constituent. The Dvaita system (Dualism) derives its name
from its antagonism to the Advaita system (Non-dualism). It stands for recognition of the
distinction between the finite self and the Supreme Being. The extension of this principle is
the assertion of similar distinction between the finite self and the nature on one hand, and that
between nature and the Supreme Being on the other. Similarly, the selves are to be
distinguished among themselves, and objects constitutive of nature are to be considered a
plurality. This five-fold difference, panca-bheda is a fundamental verity. It is held to be the
meaning of the term pra-panca signifying the universe as a whole. Madhva’s pluralism
relates to inalienable uniqueness as a basic characteristic of all that exists in the realms of
nature and beyond.

Epistemologically, pluralism rests on empiricism. In perceptual cognition, difference

gets apprehended. All difference is of some entity or substance that differs from others. This
entity must be apprehended prior to the apprehension of its difference from all that it differs
from. The positive fundament has to furnish the ground for subsequent differentiation from
the connected correlatives. But the initial apprehension alone is perceptual, and the
subsequent acts of thought are just retrospective constructions or imaginations. Madhva
holds that the initial perception apprehension is of the unique essence of the object
concerned, not undifferentiated but differentiated in a synoptic way from all else. The so-
called later differentiation is just confirmation of this primary differentiation, in relation to
specific correlatives needing such classification. As a million lights may be noticed as a
single light from a distance, the entire realm of correlatives is noted as a totality in the
primary cognition. The fundament is a unique factor containing within itself all the
potentiality for subsequent discrimination.

In philosophical motivation, theism is the central doctrine of Dvaita. Madhva argues

that if the external world is the framework of illusion, and the distinction between the
Supreme Spirit and the finite selves is unreal, the affirmation of God stands jeopardized. He
would then be the bearer of illusions, as He is the ultimate percipient without a second, and
His identity with the finite self would forfeit all claims to infinitude of perfections. For him,
the realism and pluralism are supplements to the unqualified assertion of God. His splendour
is the ultimate metaphysical concern, and it requires the reality of the cosmos and the fact of
God transcending the finite self. Madhva builds up his theism through a systematic refutation
of anti-theistic schools of Indian philosophy. For him, the anti-theistic philosophical thinking
can produce no satisfactory account of reality.

The theism of Dvaita is based on scriptural revelation. Madhva declares that the God
he adores is to be known only through sound scriptural authority, sadaagama. For him, the

7
sound scriptures are ‘the Vedas beginning with the Rigveda, the Mahabharata, the whole of
Pancaratra Agama, the original Ramayana, the Puranas in accord with these, and all other
sacred works in conformity to them’. Of these, only the Vedas are considered impersonal
and eternal. The rest are personal compositions of divine personalities in augmentation of
their teachings. Madhva holds that the above scriptures are venerable authorities in their
entirety. The Ramayana mentioned in the list is original Ramayana by Valmiki. Jayatirtha
includes even Manu-dharma-sastra among the later conforming texts. This body of
revelation-literature is considered in the Dvaita system as furnishing sound theism which is
the ultimate philosophy.

Dvaita system considers that the Vedic revelation is about Vaisnavism, identifying the
supreme Reality propounded in the Veda as Visnu, Vaasudeva or Narayana. It is true that the
Veda sakhas contain adoration of many deities but, for him, they leave us in no doubt as to
which deity is the God of gods, the supreme divine Reality according to them. Madhva
quotes a significant passage from the Rigveda, among others, wherein it is stated that the
other gods derive their limited prowess from the worship of Visnu. It is interesting to note
that Sayana explains the passage in almost the same spirit. Among the Upanisads, the fourth
chapter of the Taittiriya abounds in the glorification of Narayana as the supreme God in the
section called Narayana-anuvaka. Madhva also quotes from Harivamsa that enunciates the
pervasive Vaisnavism of the Vedic literature.

The Vedic literature speaks nowhere of the non-existence of Visnu before creation, as
it does in reference to other gods. Nowhere are any deficiencies ascribed to Him as is done
with regard to other gods. The names of all gods are applied to Visnu Himself indicative of
His omnipresence in and through all gods. Madhva argues that a detailed scrutiny of the
Vedic literature reveals the supremacy of Visnu among the Vedic gods, and not to accept it
would be against evidence.

There is a textual compulsiveness about the conclusion. The terms Visnu, Vaasudeva
and Narayana are not mere sectarian labels of Godhead, but carry profound philosophical
connotations as the term Brahman.Karma-mimamsa, Daiva-mimamsa and Brahma-mimamsa,
the three branches of Mimamsa, deal respectively with the conduct and rituals advocated, the
gods adored and the philosophical enquiry into the Brahman. Of these, Daiva-mimamsa
concludes with the proposition that Visnu is the supreme God and it is of Him that the
Brahmasutras conducts investigation under the designation of the Brahman. This Mimamsa
is referred to both by Sankara and Ramanuja. Sankara in his commentary on the Bhagavad-
Gita (15th chapter) identifies the Nirguna-Brahman with Narayana.

Thus the Dvaita system is realism and pluralism supplementing a grand theism,
founded on Vedic revelation, elucidated through Vaisnavism in character.

8
 2. Cognition
Introduction
Truth-seeking is the basic impetus behind the cognitive process. Knowledge is
something that a knower seeks to gain a true apprehension of reality, something that takes
place between a subject that knows, and an object that is known. This subject-object
implication of knowledge is fundamental. No knowing is possible without a self that knows,
and there can be no knowing which is not a knowing of something. They are two aspects of
the same spiritual entity, distinguishable but not really two in reality. Knowing, and its object
have a unique relation, visaya-visayebhava, a fundamental fact of the situation. This is what
is called svatah-pramanya.

In Dvaita system, perception is not apprehension of being as such with differentiation

to be superimposed later, but of unique entities whose uniqueness is explicated in the course
of later experience. There is no relation of ‘before’ and ‘after’, between cognizing an entity
and cognizing its uniqueness. There is only a single cognizing in the situation.

Dvaita claims that there are only three modes of knowing - pratyaksa, sense
perception; anumana, inference; and sabda, word testimony. It asserts that they are mutually
irreducible, having distinct spheres of operation. The extra sources of knowledge posited by
some other schools can legitimately be subsumed under these three in so far as they are
veridical. Madhva asserts that the summit of wisdom lies in a synthesis of these three ways
of knowing.

9
Pratyaksa, Sense Perception
Pratyaksa is perceptual cognition. Its characteristic is that it is immediate and direct.
The instrumentality of the sensory mechanism secures this immediacy. This is direct realism.
This source of knowledge is the base to the entire structure of knowledge with no vitiating
subjectivity.

Madhva states that perception can be corrected only by an enlarged and enhanced
perception. No reasoning or scripture can cancel the deliverance of perception for it subsists
on it. Perception is the upajivya-pramana for reasoning or scripture.

Dvaita considers the indeterminate perception, nirvikalpa-pratyaksa advocated by

Advaita and other schools to be a psychological fiction. All perception is determinate, and
discovers the real, characterized by determinate attributes. There is no perceptual revelation
of substances and qualities in mutual disconnection.

The sensory mechanism that makes perception is of three layers. The outermost layer
consists of the five senses of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling by touch. They
furnish information about particular data of experience in their severalty. The layer beneath
it is mind, manas. This coordinates the functioning of the outer senses and their data. It
prepares the messages for acting upon, on the part of the agent. Besides, it has its own
special function. It is the inner sense that brings about memory or recollection. It is a
specific recollection of a past event as past, and there is no contradiction between the time of
recollecting and the time recollected. It is a genuine recollection, a mode of objectively valid
experience. Dvaita similarly admits the objectivity of memory. This is only a recovery of
the kevala-pramana of the past, but not an additional category of knowing.

The innermost layer of the perceptual apparatus is the knowing self in its capacity as
knower. In its absence, no knowledge can arise through the senses and the mind. The mind
presents the messages of the senses to the self’s cognizance. The self in this aspect of the
knower or witness is called the saksin. This concept is an innovation in Dvaita epistemology.
It implies that the self in its intrinsic nature is a knower. This knower-ship in relation to the
manifold, including the fleeting objects, is a metaphysical fact.

The term saksin has meaning in relation to the objective realm witnessed and, as such,
carries dualistic implications. This dualism is a fact for Dvaita. As such, the saksin is a
fundamental verity. It is an unmediated perceiver. Its experiencing is absolutely objective
and true. The saksin has three fields of perception. It cognizes the external world through
the senses as passed through the manas. It perceives the data presented by the manas by way
of recollection. It has its own sphere of objects.

Dvaita enumerates the objects that the saksin perceives on its own. The self, by virtue
of its character as saksin, cognizes itself immediately. Self-consciousness is the fundamental
differentia of the self, and this is exercised through the saksin. While in action, the subject
cannot be the same as the object. In the matter of awareness, jnapti, there is no contradiction
involved in self-knowing. It is this knowing that lies at the basis of all other knowing, and
renders the self a ‘self’. Some kind of self-consciousness is an inevitable character of the
atman. This is generally signified by terms such as svayam-prakasa, svatah-siddha and
pratyak. This self-knowing is unique.

10
 The saksin cognizes whatever happens to the self by way of pain and pleasure, or their
absence. According to Dvaita, the self is a bhokta experiencing this duality in its intrinsic
nature. Even the Samkhya School considers the fact of bhoktrtva as one of the proofs of the
reality of the self. In other words, the self is conscious of its own avidya, made known by the
saksin. Avidya is a phenomenal category. Its nature is that it exists only by way of
presentation to a consciousness. The conditioned self is already within the hold of avidya.
Therefore, Dvaita makes a frank admission of the finite self’s awareness of its own
deficiency.

As regards the physical world, Dvaita holds that the self, by virtue of its nature as
saksin, perceives space and time as integrals. They are not forms of intuition, but are objects
of primary intuition. When location in space and time is taken as the standard for physical
reality, when space and time are fundamental facts in the experience of the self, realism with
regard to the physical world is wrought into the basic structure of consciousness. The saksin
thus makes the self a personal reality, as self-affirmation is the essence of personality.
Similarly, it makes the world of space and time an indubitable reality as they form the basic
datum of the self’s primeval experience.

11
Anumana, Inference
Anumana or anu-pramana is inference. Madhva relies for his logical theory on the
ancient work Brahmatarka, now extinct. This work has bequeathed to him and his school the
main elements of the science of Logic. Dvaita adopts, to a large extent, the logical theory of
Nyayasastra as corrected by Brahmatarka.

12
Sabda, Word Testimony
Sabda is verbal testimony. On the strength of svatah-pramanya principle and allied
concepts, Dvaita considers that sabda is an indispensable source of knowledge. It also
considers that this cannot be a sub-division of other modes of knowledge such as anumana.

The problems connected with the pramana of sabda relate to the general nature of
linguistic communication, and comprehension of such communication. There are also some
special problems in connection with the interpretation of sacred testimony such as the
embodiment of ultimate wisdom in the Vedanta scriptures.

On the issue of what constitutes a word, Dvaita counters mysticism, sabda-brahma-

vada, in line with the Nyaya and Mimamsa sastras. As for the meaning of a term, it may be
conventional or etymologically derived, rudhi or yoga. Dvaita elaborates these two types of
signification into several levels and their combinations. What the term signifies may be
described as universal or particular or a combination of the two with emphasis on the
universal or particular. Dvaita arrives at a conclusion, after detailed consideration, that the
word meaning is a specific something characterized by universal contents. It may be that the
term may have an abstract and generalized sense by itself. But when it participates in a
significant complex of a statement, it acquires specificity of reference. Dvaita negates
nihilistic approach to language.

As for the comprehension of a sentence, Dvaita subscribes to the view that the
primary grasp of the meaning of the constituent words of the sentence itself involves the
grasp of their interrelation, and there is only a single act of apprehension.

As for discovery of the final purport of a discourse or a passage with a single unit of
thought, there seems to have been an established canon of clues and grounds accepted by all
schools of Vedic exegesis, called tatparya-lingas. Madhva relies on the same canon. The
opening and conclusion, frequent reiteration, uniqueness of an idea, the idea to which the
promise of a reward is attached, commendatory legends and myths, etc and the actual
grounds employed are among the grounds enumerated in the said canon. All these are well
illustrated in the instruction of Uddalaka to Svetaketu in the Chandogya Upanisad. They
furnish the rational basis for one’s understanding of a text and constitute the logic of textual
interpretation.

Advaita contends that the ultimate Reality taught in the Upanisads is the Brahman
which has no distinctions of quality, and is in essence our essential self. The Upanisads also
affirm that the ultimate reality is beyond words. Verbal testimony can only explain what is
qualitative. Therefore, for Advaita, the method by which verbal testimony can indicate it is
by indirect and secondary signification. Madhva does not admit that the Brahman is devoid
of qualities. On the other hand, the Brahman abounds in qualities of the nature of
perfections. For him, the Brahman is substantially identical with the self in man. When the
Veda says that the Brahman is beyond words, it is only to convey Its uniqueness, immensity
and stunning greatness. Even the mention in the Upanisads that the Brahman is beyond
words is a method of conveying Its unique majesty. When the verbal testimony in scripture
is stretched to its full extent of natural meaning, it cannot signify anything but the Brahman.
According to him, Visnu is, in reality, the ultimate denotation of all terms.

13
 Madhva devotes a whole adhikarana in his Sutra-bhashya for establishing the
accessibility of Visnu to words. He is very clear that Visnu’s splendour exceeds our utmost
powers of glorification. Even words normally significatory of what is imperfect and even
evil, when properly elucidated, are transmuted into naming the supreme Godhead. As for
secondary signification, nothing that is really beyond all words can ever be conveyed through
secondary reference.

14
 3. Metaphysical Categories

General
Dvaita makes two enunciations of the table of metaphysical categories in its
epistemology of ontology, the theory of Reality. One is a table, rather a tree, of the
categories presented by Madhva himself in his Tattva-samkhyana and Tattva-viveka. The
other is the table adopted in the later stages of the tradition, enumerating ten categories,
namely, substance, dravya; quality, guna; action, karma; universal, samaanya; speciality,
visesa; similarity, sadrsya; power, sakti; the whole composed of parts, amsa; the qualified or
distinguished, visista; and non-existence, abhava. The two lists cover the entire ground of
Dvaita metaphysics. While the table adopted in the later stages of the tradition is modeled on
the Nyaya-Vaisesika enumeration of categories, the table of Madhva brings out the
characteristic metaphysical position of the School. The categories of the two tables can be
fruitfully dealt with under the three main categories of Nature, Individual Soul and God.

15
Nature
As regards Nature or the system of physical existence, two fundamental propositions
fix its metaphysical status. The physical world is real and is not to be regarded as an illusion,
or a projection of the subject. All illusions presuppose a substratum, another real entity to
which it is similar. On the basis of this similarity, something totally non-existent is super-
imposed on the substratum. If the world is to be unreal, there must be a real world and, on its
analogy, the false world is to be imagined to exist in the place of the substratum. In other
words, for the world to be illusory, there must be a real world as presupposition. A total
world-illusion is an impossibility.

An illusory presentation is a derived phenomenon. Its capacity to delude depends on

its claim to be a transcript of the real. Dream deludes, because of its posing as a waking
experience. If there is no waking experience at all, there can be no dream experience as
psychological fact, and it can have no deceptive power either. Madhva is of the firm view
that neither matter nor spirit can be reduced to the other as declared in Anuvyakhyana

According to Dvaita School, the first fundamental proposition is that the physical
world is an irreducible ontological verity. The second is that it is not all that exists. In the
first place, it does not generate the conscious spirits and does not hold the key to their
philosophical explanation. Its own existence, functions and intelligibility depend upon the
Supreme Spirit. It is sustained as what it is, through the power of the Brahman, in its static
and dynamic aspects, and even its conceivability. This dependence in respect of satta-
pravrtti-pramiti is also an ultimate fact. This two-fold determination of the ontological status
of the material world furnishes the background to the entire philosophy of Nature in the
Dvaita system.

Time and space, together, constitute all that is physical. In fact, its location in them
constitutes the mark of its reality. Space and time are realities testified in the experience of
the saksin. The reality of all that occupies space, and occurs in time is linked to the reality of
space and time. This derives from the saksin’s primary experience.

Dvaita denies the unqualified Buddhist doctrine of mutability, ksanika-vada. Dvaita

asserts that there is a measure of immutability of fundamental substance in Nature which
admits of no absolute origination or destruction. In the process of change occurring in
Nature, causation is what matters. Dvaita’s theory of causation is sadasatkarya-vada. It
rejects the extreme views of pratityasamutpada-vada and vivarta-vada. It attempts a
combination of arambha-vada and satkarya-vada. It justifies the aspect of continuity of
causal process, and the novelty of effects.

From the standpoint of Dvaita, the philosophy of Nature and the investigation of
empirical sciences are distinct. Science discovers the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of a physical object,
and philosophy discerns the divine principle at its foundation. Matter consists of the objects
of external Nature and the allied factors that go to constitute man’s living organism including
life principle, sense organs, antahkarana, etc. According to Dvaita, the Brahman, Isvara is
the ultimate source of the evolution of Prakrti, Nature into the state of explicit activity.
Isvara brings the world into being, actuates it in its operations and renders it understandable.
He is the hetu of its satta, pravrtti and pramiti. Madhva considers that Isvara is only the
nimitta-karana and not the upadana-karana. Madhva insists that the substratum, even in its
causal state, is dependent on Isvara as wholly as the effect does. Its satta, pravrtti and

16
pramiti are drawn from that single source of all being, power and intelligibility. There is no
dualism of two independent causal principles.

The idea of the all-embracing dependence of the physical world on the Supreme
Being, Visnu is the final message of Madhva’s philosophy of Nature. Visnu comprehends the
whole of external Nature as a field of existence permeated and sustained by His immanent
presence in all its states, primordial as well as consequent. Though Nature is a reality, Isvara
is all in all in it. In fact, Nature is reality through His anugraha to that effect.

17
Individual Soul (Jiva)
In Dvaita, the philosophy of Nature leads to the consideration of the philosophy of
jivatman, the finite self. The jivatman is an entity not derived or produced from Nature.
Dvaita holds that the jivatman, self is an enduring and non-composite entity. It may undergo
partial modifications in its career through the force of external factors. But its core remains
abiding and unbroken. It is eternal and indissoluble. Secondly, it is no autonomous reality in
total mastery of its being and destiny. It is paratantra owing to its satta-pravrtti-pramiti,
existence, powers of action and cognizability, to the Supreme Spirit. It passes from state to
state, in the cosmic cycle of creation, subsistence, dissolution, in the life sequence of birth,
survival and death, and in the sequence of consciousness by way of sleep, dream and waking,
owing to the operation of the Paramatman to that effect. When the origin of an individual
jiva is spoken of, it is this change into a new state through the action of God that is signified.
As such, it falls into the realm of effects issuing from that universal source. This dependence
on God is as ultimate a fact as its un-derivability from, and irreducibility to, matter.

The distinguishing character of a self is its self-awareness which constitutes aham,

ego. This ego is a metaphysical category, not connected with egoism or egotism characteristic
of moral degeneration. In the cognitive situation, the notion of self-awareness is free from
contradiction, and fundamental. The individual self is a self-aware ego or personality.

Dvaita characterizes the jiva as atomic and incapable of further division, and as an
ultimate unit of existence. This is not to say that it is a particle. It is non-composite, a centre
of consciousness, not possessing the material property of extension. It is not vibhu, all-
pervasive, either, for the reason that it is finite. Only the Supreme Self is non-composite as
well as infinite. The term anu combines in itself the double connotation of non-
compositeness and finitude. Though the self is an atomic subject, its power of consciousness
spreads beyond the centre, and its circumference can be the entire cosmos. This enables the
jiva to know the extensive realm of existence, comprising God, other individual selves and
Nature.

For Dvaita, the very essence of a jiva lies in its self-conscious relation, by way of
consciousness, to the world of objects, be the material or spiritual. The jivatman, in its real
nature, is a jnata, knower; karta, agent of actions; and bhokta, the experiencer of pleasures
and pains. These aspects are combined in the self without breaking up its unity.

The next question is whether there is a plurality of selves or a single self. Dvaita
considers that the diversity of experience belongs to the selves themselves and, as such, they
are to be regarded as many in reality. Madhva argues that the plurality of the finite selves
must be admitted as a metaphysical fact.

Another question is whether the finite self is one, in substance, with the Absolute Self,
or it is a different entity altogether. Dvaita holds that the essence of the jiva is no pure
consciousness devoid of its individualizing self-experience in terms of finitude in matters
such as knowledge and joy. The jivatman is fundamentally other than the Paramatman. The
continuance of this difference between the jivatman and Paramatman is both in the states of
samsara and moksa.

In addition to the insurmountable differences of selves among themselves and their

difference from the Brahman, they form a natural hierarchy based on gradations of worth,

18
inherent in their basic nature. The gradation persists in the state of moksa, release, too.
Dvaita holds that, at the bottom of the hierarchy, there are two classes of souls that are evil
beyond remedy, one condemned by nature to perpetual transmigration and the other
predestined by nature for eternal damnation. This doctrine of souls inherently incapable of
emancipation is not special to Dvaita alone. It is so asserted in certain sects of Christianity,
Jainism, etc. Dvaita considers this view as taratamya-vada.

The crowning point in the philosophy of the finite self is that the self is differentiated
from the Supreme Being, though one with It. The reconciling proposition is that the self is a
part, amsa of God. The concept of amsa is applied to the jiva in several sruti texts such as the
Bhagavad-Gita, Brahma-Sutras. Madhva accepts the concept of amsa, part. The jiva is
different from the Supreme, but is entirely dependent on It and bears towards It various
relationships of dependence. The jiva shares with the Supreme the attributes such as
knowledge and joy, though in its own infinitesimal measure as conferred by It. This is what is
called vibhinnamsa which provides for absolute numerical difference between the jiva and
the Brahman, but provides utter dependence and partial likeness of nature for the jiva to the
Brahman. The jiva is thus an amsa of the Brahman. The appropriate metaphor to bring out
this three-fold significance is that of an image of reflection, pratibimba. For, an image is
different from the original, is totally dependent on it, and bears resemblance to it. For
Madhva, the term pratibimba is no unreality. The jiva is an eternal and absolutely real image
of Visnu, and the only condition that brings about its character as an image is its own
essential nature. He, therefore, calls it svarupopadhika-pratibimba or nirupadhika-
pratibimba. The pratibimba truly carries an intimation of the original bimba. Dvaita infers
that to reflect on the nature of jiva is to be irresistibly drawn to Isvara, who surpasses it
immeasurably, who sustains it and imparts to it partial affinity of nature.

The finite self’s dependence on God is the bottom-line of Dvaita Vedanta. The finite
self’s being, satta; activity, pravrtti; and intelligibility, pramiti flow from Him. The
Brahmasutra Bashya of Madhva states that God’s cosmic activity is eight-fold, namely
creation, maintenance, dissolution, regulation, obscuration of knowledge, illumination,
bondage and emancipation. Of these, the first four functions are to be interpreted in relation
to the individual self suitably, for they do not apply to it in the manner they do to insentient
matter. The second four functions apply only to the self. God casts the souls in the ignorance
of samsara, and brings them illumination when they deserve it. He is the causal power
behind their bondage by virtue of their blemishes of deed and thought. He liberates them
graciously in response to their efforts in that direction. In the later four functions, God’s
righteous might as well as mercy is operative. All that is good and up-lifting, and all that
carries the joy of self-fulfillment flow from His grace alone. His grace is the paramount
source of all blessedness. The Brahmasutra Bhashya states that Visnu is the giver of
knowledge to those who are ignorant; He is the giver of liberation to the enlightened; and He,
the same Janardana, imparts ananda to the liberated. Both knowledge, which is the means of
liberation, and the end which is liberation, are His gracious gifts. Even in liberation, it is His
grace that fills the jiva with the abundance of joyous life. The finite self lives, moves and has
its being in God only owing to His divine grace.

19
God
Dvaita metaphysics considers the Supreme Reality, the Brahman, Visnu is self-
distinguishing absolute self. As such, He is eminently personal. The Bhagavad-Gita
describes Him as Purusottama.

Popular consciousness does not pose the distinction between God and the individual
self for the reason that God is not a matter of empirical certainty. His existence is, therefore,
to be proved on the basis of scripture. In almost all his woks, Madhva presents what he
regards the pervasive and supreme theme of the Vedic scripture. He calls it mahatatparya,
meaning the essence of the theme or subject matter. It is an explication of the Upanisadic
term maha-jneyam. For Madhva, the mahatatparya is Visnu. Visnu is the encompassing
concern of the entire body of Vedic revelation. In Harivamsa, it is glorified that Hari is the
beginning, the centre and the conclusion; Hari is the Being glorified in the Veda,
Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Purana. Madhva’s work Visnu Tattva Nirnaya adds another
point. It is not merely that Visnu is spoken of everywhere. His all-surpassing eminence or
majesty, sarvotkarsa is spoken of everywhere. The mahatatparya of the revelation is,
therefore, the supremacy of Visnu. The essence of sacred texts in their totality is the
mahatmya of Visnu. For Madhva, this thesis is presented in the Gita itself in the twin
declarations ‘Vedaih sarvah aham eva vedyah’ and ‘Uttamah purusatvanyah
paramatmetyudahrtah’. The single theme of Vedanta, affirmed in different ways, is this
transcendent supremacy of Visnu, the Brahman.

The Brahman, and His infinite eminence, is the supreme import of the Vedic
revelation. He is not knowable through the other sources of knowledge. Sense-perception is
confined to material entities and cannot reach to the height of revealing Him. Inference only
clarifies and coordinates what is presented by the other sources of knowledge. It cannot
reveal anything by itself. Reason is useful only when it is instrumental to other pramanas, but
not on its own. This is because of the demonstrable limitations of reason. Hence revelation,
constituting the Vedantic scriptures, can be the soul guide for knowing the highest
metaphysical truth.

The Upanisads declare the Brahman as Advaitam paramarthatah. Madhva interprets

it to mean that it is unsurpassed and not even equaled by any other entity. It is absolutely
supreme, totally incomparable. He states that the Supreme Being is described as infinite,
ananta precisely on account of Its immensity of glorious and real gunas, excellences -
Mahadgunatvat yamanta mahuhu, Bhagavan anantahananta gunarnavah. The Brahman has
gunas, but unlike the gunas of Prakrti, and the imperfections of the jiva engendered by the
same gunas.

The Taittiriya Upanisad defines the Brahman thus: ‘The Brahman is real, knowledge
and infinite’. This definition has several parallels in other Upanisads. Here the substantive,
the subject being defined, is the Brahman. To it three predicates ‘real, knowledge and
infinite’ are applied by the defining proposition. How are we to understand the proposition?
It is the same, identical subject that is being defined. Its unity is a paramount consideration.
If the proposition is taken as discerning in it or ascribing to it three attributes conveyed by the
three predicates, its unity is broken. The definition then splits up the integral unity of its
subject. It reads into it internal qualitative distinctions. The purpose of the definition is
verily defeated.

20
 To overcome the difficulty, the Advaita philosophy considers that the predicates must
be understood negatively. ‘Real’ means ‘other than the unreal’; ‘knowledge’ means ‘other
than insentience’; ‘infinite’ means ‘other than the finite’. It is this negative demarcation that
the definition accomplishes. Nothing is read into the subject, but only three possible
misconceptions about it are eliminated. On the other hand, the Dvaita philosophy considers
the whole dialectical exercise of Advaita as misconceived. The fear of breaking up the
integral unity of the subject, by the fact of attributing to it one or more features, proceeds
from the failure to grasp the principle of Visesa. The exclusions proposed of what are
opposed to the ‘real, knowledge and infinite’ cannot serve to define the Brahman, unless they
belong to It qualitatively. Dvaita, therefore, argues that there is no escape from admitting the
qualitative characterization of the subject in the proposition.

The Vedantic scriptures contain a good deal of the Brahman-jiva dualistic teachings
conceiving of the Brahman and the jiva as fundamentally different. They are clear texts of
Dvaita import. Madhva makes great contribution in his classic work Visnu Tattva Nirnaya
with masterly discussion of the duality of the Brahman and the jiva. The work Visnu Tattva
Nirnaya splits the problem into two sections; it takes up the estimate of the dualistic texts first
and then attends to the monistic texts supposed to cancel them.

Jayatirtha in his work Sudha gives an idea of these several ways of affirmation. Each
way enumerated brings out the style and direction of countless illustrative Vedantic texts.
They together comprehend all the principal modes of revelation. A few of them commented
upon by Jayatirtha are recorded hereunder.

‘Sarvajnatva-sarvesvaratva-sarvantaryamitva-soundarya-audarya-guna-visistataya’.
These predicates proclaim that the Brahman is possessed of excellences such as omniscience,
over-lordship, overall-existence, all embracing immanence, beauty and bountifulness. The
Brahman is infinite intelligence, infinite in sovereign power, infinitely present everywhere
and through all eternity and in all things ruling them within, and infinite beauty and infinite
compassion. The bulk of saguna-sruti is comprised herein.

‘Apahatapapmatva-nirduhkhatva-prakrta-bhautika-vigraharahitatvadi-dosabhava
visistataya’. These predicates deny the Brahman of sin, affliction, materiality and such other
imperfections. The texts portraying the Brahman as nirguna are stated in this description.
The limitations and blemishes characteristic of the finite self and matter are negated of the
Brahman. This freedom from the infirmities of the jiva and the jagat is itself an excellence of
the Brahman. This is Its negative excellence. All these predicates jointly establish the
transcendent perfection of the Supreme.

‘Atigahanata-jnanapanaya-vagmanasagocaratva-karena’. These predicates denote

the unfathomable mystery and profundity of the Brahman. The Brahman cannot be reached
by the mind and word. This is explanatory of the mystic’s confession of the ineffability of
his experience. This is what is ‘expounded through speechlessness’. It is no mere
speechlessness, but speechlessness that proclaims the deepest mystery of the infinite presence
exercising boundless fascination.

‘Sarvaparityagena-tasyaiva-upadanaya-advitiyatvena’. These predicates do not

mean the ontological non-dualism of the Brahman, but only denote that the Brahman is the
axiological absolute, the sole object of human endeavour and aspiration, with the
renunciation of every other interest. The Mandukya passage Advaitam paramarthatah brings

21
out, without any ambiguity, the perspective of value, the ideal to be pursued. The attainment
of the Brahman is not an objective among others. All else is to be discarded, and the quest
for the Brahman must be the only passion. What is preached in these texts is the singularity
of the final goal of man’s life.

‘Sarvasatta-pratiti-pravrtti-nimitta-pratipatyartham-sarvatmatvena’. These five

predicates constitute pancabheda in Dvaita literature as repeatedly referred to by Jayatirtha.
These predicates subsume the entire heritage of Vedantic revelation. According to Jayatirtha,
the five-fold exposition of the Brahman is the pancaprakara-pratipadana of the
Paramatman. These five types are not parallel modes but converge in presenting a single
thesis. That thesis is: ‘Sarvavyapi Vedanta-vakyani, asankhyeya-kalyana-gunakaram,
sakala-dosa-gandhavidhuram, eka rupam eva brahma narayanakhyam pratipadayanti’
meaning that the Brahman is of one nature only and is the same as Narayana. Narayana is the
ocean of infinite perfections and has no trace of any evil or imperfection. According to
Jayatirtha, this is the fundamental and all-comprehensive teaching of the Vedantic revelation,
and the five modes described converge to proclaim the single truth of the Brahman as
Narayana.

Dvaita considers the determination of relations between the substantive being of God
and His attributes. It states that there are four wrong views on this issue. The first is that the
Brahman has no attributes. The second is that It has attributes, but the attributes are entirely
different from the svarupa, substantive essence. The third is that the relation between the
Brahman and the attributes is one of identity-cum-difference. The fourth is that there are two
types of attributes, inner and outer, the first set identical with the svarupa, and the other set
external to it and different from it. Dvaita refutes all these four views. Its position is that
there are attributes, that they are identical with the substantive nature, svarupa, and still
admits of conceptual and verbal distinction by virtue of the principle of visesa. Visesa is,
therefore, that category which explains the possibility of distinction between a substance and
its attributes in discourse, without importing into the integral unity of the entity the difference
between the substance and attributes, and also that among the attributes themselves. This
principle of visesa does not cover the relation between the Brahman and jiva for, according to
Dvaita, the Brahman with Its perfections and the jiva with its undeniable limitations are
inherently opposed in nature.

This principle of visesa is explanatory of not merely the Brahman and Its attributes,
but also all cases of substances with inalienable attributes. It is a universal and pervasive
metaphysical principle. This is used to explain the relation of the primordial Brahman to Its
incarnations and diverse forms, and also the relation between It and Its external form, akara
glorified in Vaisnavism.

The attributes of the Brahman are truly infinite. Even the highest among the jivas can
only apprehend them, and cannot comprehend them. It is this inexhaustibility of attributes
that is meant in the Upanisads when they say that the Brahman is beyond thought and words.

Some kind of classification of attributes is possible. Infinite power, infinite

knowledge and infinity itself in relation to time and space are metaphysical attributes.
Creation itself constitutes the compassionate and gracious attributes. These attributes are real
and ultimate. In this aspect ‘love’ comes in. Madhva refers to the relation of love he enjoys
with his God in each of his works. This is not a humanization of the Almighty, but the
discernment of love in the most divine of human beings, although in an infinitesimal manner.

22
Madhva adores the love aspect of God. He is a great devotee of Bhagavatha, a saga of
transcendent love. In his Gita Bhashya, Madhva says that God sets aside His self-dependence
and majesty, as it were, and subordinates Himself to His devotee. This only reflects
Madhva’s passionate attachment to his God of love and grace.

Madhva considers that God is infinite beauty, too. His form is blissful beyond
expression. It is no material adjunct. It is wholly spiritual. In It is concentrated absolute
beauty. His work Dvadasastotra extols this aspect.

While Madhva considers that the above attributes of the Brahman are real, but
spiritual, he emphasizes that an exhaustive cognition is impossible for the finite intellect.
But, for purposes of meditation, it is necessary to capture the most defining attributes. He,
therefore, lists four aspects of the Brahman–sat, absolute reality; cit, absolute consciousness;
ananda, absolute bliss; and atmattva, absolute self of all, as the essential minimum for
practising meditation on the Supreme Being. Beyond this minimum, the jivas can go to the
extent their natural capacity and the level of spiritual advancement permit. The range their
vision can command constitutes their status in the hierarchy of finite spirits.

This gunotkarsa, qualitative magnificence of God is what makes Him transcend

matter, the finite spirits in both their states of bondage and liberation, and even Laksmi
designated Aksara. He is not merely transcendent, but immanent in the cosmos of matter and
finite selves, through His cosmic activity.

Madhva states that this activity of God, the Brahman is because of His being the
Bhuman. The concept of the Bhuman presents an absolute Being that is creatively dynamic
and active from abundance of attainment. The perfect Spirit is boundlessly dynamic and
creative, while the finite selves, who are to overcome their imperfections, are limited in
proportion to their antecedent imperfections.

For Madhva, the cosmic activity of God is eightfold. First is srsti, creation of the
world. Creation does not mean bringing anything into being out of absolute non-being.
What exists previously is brought into a new configuration. In the case of the world, it is
bringing it into explicitness in terms of manifold names and forms. Madhva insists that
creation is not of the nature of self-transformation of the Brahman. The material cause which
it transforms into the effect is not an autonomous substance existing in its own right in its
causal state. It is all His being in all creation.

The second aspect is the maintenance of the world so created. The world is God’s,
after creation, too. He sustains it in actuality. His hold on it is co-terminus with its
continuance.

The third aspect is the withdrawal of the world into its condition of non-manifestation
and, mere potentiality, waiting for His causal touch to spring into manifestation.

The fourth aspect is regulation, inward control. The term antaryamin of the
Brhadaranyaka Upanisad signifies this aspect.

The fifth aspect relates to the living and conscious jivas in creation. It consists in
covering them with avidya, a positive force, not mere absence of knowledge. This has two
aspects. Avidya conceals the jiva’s own nature from its understanding, and conceals the

23
nature of the Supreme Being. This infliction of ignorance is not an arbitrary act of God, but
is the result of the jiva’s antecedent deformities of deed and thought. It is in the nature of a
just carrying out of the consequences of the jiva’s own karma.

The sixth aspect is the gift of enlightenment that does not accrue independent of
divine grace. Grace is to be worked for through spiritual aspiration and effort.
Enlightenment is in two levels. One may be mediate and intellectual understanding of the
nature of the jiva and the Lord through the devout study of scriptures. The other is the higher
level of enlightenment by way of the intuitive vision of Reality. Both these are gifts of grace
in answer to the aspirant’s sustained effort.

The seventh aspect is bondage meaning the soul’s imprisonment in matter, and the
suppression of its own essential blissful nature, and the non-attainment of God by way of
experience. This is the consequence of the antecedent spiritual failure of the jiva. The wrath
of God always descends by way of invitation, as it were. There is an unfailing adjustment of
grace to its invocation by the individual through his life.

The eighth and the last aspect is the gift of liberation, and the jiva is to be worthy of it.
Liberation is a gift, and must be deserved through appropriate devotion founded on exact
knowledge of the glory of the Supreme. The consummation crowns the life of the most
ardent devotee, parama-bhakta by the final grace, parama-prasada. Liberation frees the
devotee from his captivity in matter, releases his suppressed potentialities of the nature of
knowing and rejoicing, and renders the blissful reality of God a perpetual presence to his
wakeful consciousness.

Madhva realizes the impossibility of doing full justice to the majesty of God. He,
therefore, sums up four cardinal points as the unerring and conclusive judgment of God,
samyag-vinirnaya. They are that Visnu abounds in all excellences; He is free from all
blemishes; everything depends upon Him, while He is absolutely self-dependent; and He is
different from all else, otherwise His freedom from blemishes cannot be true.

24
 4. Purusartha, Human Goal

Purusartha, Human Goal

Purusartha is the supreme value or ideal to be pursued and realized by the finite self.
Dvaita conceives of moksa, liberation as the ultimate perfection of life, the final goal to be
attained. It advocates the renunciation of lower ends such as kama, artha and even dharma.
Moksa signifies emancipation from all the afflictions of life.

Dvaita upholds the continuance of conscious individuality as necessary for the

attainment of supreme self-consummation that moksa is. According to it, moksa must be the
fulfillment of conscious individuality in the attainment of the positive experience of eternal
joy. All the schools of Vedanta contend that joy, infinite and eternal, is to be found only in
the Brahman. To make possible this positive aspect of moksa, the finite self must integrate
with the Brahman, the sole repository of bliss. In a way this integration is there as an eternal
metaphysical fact, but the finite self must attune itself in its consciousness and life to the
Brahman. What is required is integration in consciousness.

For Dvaita, the integration cannot mean the merger of the individual self into the
universal self, shedding its specific personality. It can only mean its absorption in the
experience of the Brahman with full recognition of its utter dependence on that Soul of souls.
It is union without self-extinction, by way of experience, conformity in will and a life of
blissful sub-ordination. Ultimate surrender to the Supreme is the highest exultation and the
pinnacle of joy. It is an enfoldment of the inherent nature of the individual in the
commanding presence of God, and that constitutes the ananda of the summum bonum.

The main aspects of moksa, the state of its attainment is mukti, are, therefore, a total
and final cessation of afflictions; an emancipation from the blending and binding
imprisonment in matter brought about by karma; an enfoldment of what constitutes the
essence of the individual self, a self-finding rather than self-annihilation; an enfoldment in
and through the joyful presence and vision of God; and a rapturous exercise of the rightful
role of dependence and subservience to Him. These aspects are common to all theistic and
bhakti schools of Vedanta including Dvaita.

Madhva recognizes the four kinds of mukti, namely, salokya, sarupya, samipya and
sayujya. Madhva uses this classification of attaining mukti as one of the many arguments in
favor of his thesis of gradation of intrinsic bliss, anandataratamya among souls in moksa.

As Dvaita conforms to the doctrine of inherent hierarchy of souls corresponding to

different grades of natural capacity, it contends that their fulfillment of the means of moksa is
bound to be of varied levels. As such, the end attained by them in moksa by way of
comprehension and joy is bound to be of corresponding grades and levels. There is a natural
continuity and consistency between intrinsic competence and spiritual endeavour on the one
hand, and between that endeavour and attainment on the other. There is no violation at any
stage of the system of hierarchy. The evils of inequality in the earthly life are not to be found
in the Kingdom of God. There pure spirits rejoice in the guidance and benediction from their
spiritual superiors, and bestow their guidance on their inferiors. There is a divine harmony in
and through this very inequality. This is the doctrine of ananda-taratamya. Madhva holds
that this doctrine has its basis in the scriptures. According to him, the connected doctrine of

25
the natural hierarchy of souls and the existence of souls predestined for perpetual samsara at
the final damnation of spiritual darkness has also its basis in scriptures.

26
Sadhana, Means of Attainment
Dvaita outlines the means, sadhana for realization of the supreme end, moksa.
Sadhana is a progressive endeavour and it mobilizes all the resources of personality. Madhva
assimilates into his scheme of sadhana the entire heritage of the Upanisadic thought, the
bhakti literature such as the puranas, the agamas, and the epics including the Bhagavad-Gita.

The ultimate factor that brings about man’s liberation, attainment of moksa, is the
grace, prasada of Narayana. ‘Without Narayana’s prasada, moksa is not possible’ says
Madhva. There are several levels of grace that confers this boon. ‘The grace that responds to
karma is the lowest, that, which is in answer to disciplines such as sravana, is of the middle
level, and that which rewards the precious possession of knowledge is the highest’. This
prasada is an ever-existent reality. All that is required of human effort is to actuate it
towards the granting of moksa. It is ultimately God Himself through His grace, which is
indistinguishable from His essence, because of the principle of visesa that effectuates the
summum-bonum of man, moved towards that end, by the spiritual endeavour of the aspirant.

The works of grace of Narayana are manifold. The Visnu Tattva Nirnaya lays down
that ‘Visnu grants knowledge to the ignorant, grants liberation to the man of knowledge, and
grants ananda to the liberated individual.’ Grace is a continuously operative factor in
spiritual life, and does not cease to be required even when the goal is accomplished.

What brings grace to operational manifestation is bhakti of the aspirant. Dvaita

tradition defines bhakti thus: Mahatmya-jnana pursvastu sudrdhah sarvatodhikah; Sneho
bhaktriti proktahtaya muktih nacanyatha. The two constituents of bhakti are knowledge of
the greatness of God and love towards Him. This love must be steadfast and surpass in its
intensity all other love including self-love. It is that height of bhakti that could invoke the
necessary grace of Narayana for the purpose of moksa. There are different levels of bhakti,
four levels stated in the Gita. Only the highest bhakti is what brings about the prasada for
moksa.

Madhva is one of the greatest philosophers of bhakti. For him, bhakti is omnipresent,
as it were, in spiritual life. His work Anuvyakhyana records thus: ‘Bhakti generates
knowledge; knowledge, in its turn, generates bhakti, which, in its turn, generates the direct
perception of God. This perception generates bhakti, which brings about mukti, liberation.’ It
is the first means, and the constituent of the last end itself. Jayatirtha says that parama-bhakti
is the level of bhakti that brings about the final liberating grace of God.

Bhakti is to spring from knowledge, not mere emotion. Madhva characterizes it as a

particular form of knowledge jnanasya visesa. Its character and qualitative level depend
upon the knowledge on which it is founded. The highest bhakti can spring from only the
highest level of knowledge. Therefore, this bhakti must ensue from the immediate, direct and
perceptual or intuitive apprehension of God. Madhva calls it aparoksa-jnana. This cannot be
mere meditative imagination. Madhva insists that this bhakti must exceed the imaginative
immediacy as stated in Brahmasutra Bhashya. Only the love engendered by the direct
communion with the object of love can have the appropriate height and intensity. Hence,
aparoksa-jnana is a necessity.

The means prescribed to achieve perceptual experience of God is upasana or

nididhyasana. This is meditative contemplation of God with love and longing for the vision.

27
It paves the way for the direct experience of God through the invariable means of grace. The
meditation should not be mixed with fear or animosity. It must be of the nature of ardent
seeking. The intellectual understanding of God derived from revelation and philosophical
investigation can be converted into direct experience only through loving meditation.
Aparoksa-jnana is the final phase in the process of knowing God. To effect the transition
from mediacy to immediacy, upasana is the essential means. Trivikrama Pandit explains it
thus: ‘The accumulated karma, which prevents the emergence of the vision of Ananta, cannot
be eliminated except through uninterrupted contemplation.’

There are different levels of upasana, too. The unenlightened fix their thoughts on
God in the sacred images. The ritualists worship Him in the sacred fire. The yogins meditate
upon Him as dwelling in their own hearts. Some regard Him as residing in external nature.
But the wise ones meditate upon Him as immanent in all. The right type of meditaion is to
dwell on God as sat-cit-ananda-atma, this being the basic defining characterization of
Godhead.

Meditation is a determined process. For it to be possible, the aspirant must be free

from doubts and uncertainties. He must be convinced, and be in absolute certainty of what he
meditates upon. For this, philosophical investigation carried to the point of conclusive
establishment of the truth about God is necessary. In its absence, doubts confront the
meditating devotee. Skeptical devotion carries the aspirant nowhere. Certainty of conviction
is a prerequisite to steady and determined meditation. Hence, brahma-jijnasa, as embodied
in the Brahma Sutras, is necessary for founding meditation upon. This is the manana stated
in the Upanisads.

But jijnasa, philosophical enquiry is to be on the data of a pramana, and revelation is

the only pramana. Therefore, as a presupposition of jijnasa or manana, sravana, the study of
right scriptures is necessary. Madhva and Jayatirtha insist that the student must be steadfast,
devout and earnest about comprehension. The scriptures reveal their inner import only to
such an approach. On sravana, manana and nidi-dhyasana, Madhva says thus: ‘One must
study the scriptures as long as there is ignorance, must reason as long as there is prima-facie
unreasonableness in the contents of the scriptures, and must meditate until direct realization
takes place.’

The concepts of aparoksa-jnana and parama-bhakti bring out the fundamental

elements of sadhana, the two proximate means to the action of supreme prasada. These
concepts duly harmonize the doctrine of the bhakti tradition as the saving factor, and the
holding of jnana as the pathway to salvation, while the supreme factor of grace is assigned its
ultimate role. The ethical aspect of sadhana, generally called karma, plays a subordinate
role.

Karma-yoga of the Gita is an indispensible part of the scheme of sadhana. It has to

be yoga, disinterested and performed in the spirit of worship. It has two-fold efficacy. One
is that it produces the appropriate purity of spirit necessary for the emergence of jnana. The
second is that, if performed after the emergence of jnana, it adds to the ananda that flows
from jnana. Tradition does not advocate total renunciation of action, as action itself, and not
merely the motive behind it, is the binding force.

Madhva interprets renunciation of action as sattvic renunciation, meaning simply the

renunciation of the self-centred motivation in action. According to him, the legitimate karma

28
is that done in the worship of Hari, tatkarma haritosam yat. Acts in adoration of God shall
not be abandoned. Even in such acts, the external aspect of act is subordinate and has
instrumental value in relation to the resulting vision which is the final element in sadhana.
This establishes that knowledge only is the means to liberation. All this is in the high
tradition of Vedanta assimilating into itself the essential karma-yoga of the Gita.

Besides the ethics of action, there is an ethics of self-culture relating to the

development of spiritual temper or disposition. This is the inner ethics of personality.
Jayatirtha, in his commentary on Visnu Tattva Nirnaya, lists four attitudes as making up this
ethics. The first is discernment, viveka of what is abiding and transitory among the values
open to man’s pursuit. The second is detachment towards the perishable trivialities of life,
the outcome of discernment. This is vairagya. The third is the passionate desire for the
highest value of life, moksa. This is also called mumuksutva. It is both self-negation in so far
as the self seeks the finite goods of earthly life, and self-affirmation in so far as the self seeks
life eternal and life abundant. The fourth is cultivation of certain qualities five of which are
listed in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad – sama, dama, uparati, titiksa and samadhana.
Madhva interprets them as steadfastness in devotion to the Lord, subjugation of pride,
dwelling with satisfaction on the Lord within one’s own heart, equanimity in pleasure and
pain, and contemplativeness respectively. The interpretation of sama and uparati is bhakti
oriented, and is named samadisampat. These four attitudes, viveka, vairagya, mumuksutva
and samadisampat constitute sadhana-catustaya, the basic dispositional preparation for the
higher life of sadhana.

The elements and stages that constitute the pathway of sadhana in the ascending order
are, therefore, the four-fold equipment, sadhana-catustaya; karma-yoga, the pathway of
action; sravana, the study of revelation; manana, the philosophical investigation into the
revelation producing conviction; nidhidyasana or upasana, devout meditation; aparoksa-
jnana, direct apprehension of the Supreme; parama-bhakti, supreme love; and parama-
prasada, the supreme grace. Bhakti and prasada are operative throughout in various levels.
Jnana is a matter of several levels interspersed between prasada and bhakti. The final word
in the progression is prasada. For Madhva, it is Narayana’s prasada which is the ultimate
redemptive power. His ecstasy of adoration is directed to that height. All philosophical
explorations and all scriptures point to the necessity for perpetual devotion to the Highest. To
allow any interruption to such devotion only leads to ruination.

29
 5. Evolution of Dvaita Thought
Dualism, as understood in western philosophy, is a ‘theory which admits two
independent and mutually irreducible substances’. Samkhya Dualism answers to this
definition. But Madhva’s Dvaita, Dualism admits two mutually irreducible principles as
constituting Reality as a whole, but regards only one of them, God as independent, svatantra
and the other as dependent, paratantra. God, the Supreme Being is the One and Only
Independent Principle, and all finite reality comprising the prakrti, purusas, kala, karma,
svabhava, etc is dependent, paratantra. This concept of two orders of reality, tattvas, that is,
svatantra and paratantra is the keynote of the philosophy of Madhva. This is the highest
metaphysical and ontological classification in Madhva’s Dvaita Vedanta. Madhva insists on
a difference in status between the two principles, and makes one of them finite, paratantra
dependent completely on the other, svatantra for its being and becoming.

In Indian thought, Dvaita signifies a system of philosophy which posits more than one
fundamental metaphysical principle or category to explain the cosmos, or a fundamental
distinction between the human souls and the Supreme Being, for all time. Dvaita recognizes
the states of bondage and release as real states or experiences pertaining to the atman.
Madhva is categorical that our finite experiences of embodied existence and our efforts to
achieve freedom from bondage have both a real value and validity of their own, and are not
mere bubbles of avidya.

God, the Supreme Being is the Svantantra, the One and Only Independent Substance
and all else is dependent, paratantra. This dependence is metaphysical and fundamental to
the very being and becoming of the finite which can never outgrow it. The dependent reals
exist from eternity, but they do so, not in their own right, but on sufferance of the Supreme.
They are not despite of the Lord, but because of Him. They owe their very existence,
knowledge, activity, etc to Him. The Only Independent Real exists in Its own right and in the
highest sense of the term. The Supreme may well be and is, at times, referred to in the
scriptures as the One without a second, without any prejudice to the reality and subordinate
existence of the finite selves such as prakrti. The finite selves are ‘naught as it were’.
Jayatirtha states that ‘scriptures depict the Brahman in diverse ways and from different
standpoints, all converging towards the one purpose, mahatatparya of expounding the
transcendent and immanent majesty of God Himself in the atman and in the world’. The
unity, sovereignty and independence of God are consistent with the claims of reason and
demands of metaphysics.

The English term ‘Dualism’ does not adequately express the full content and depth of
meaning that Madhva has put into that term Dvaita. Even the Sanskrit term Dvaita does not
literally express more than the number of fundamental principles accepted. B.N.K.Sharma
suggests ‘Svatantra-Advitiya-Brahmavada’ may be an appropriate designation for Madhva’s
system to convey directly the highest reach of its thought and its metaphysical ideology. The
only internal distinctions that are logically conceivable in the Brahman are those of attributes.
The adjunct svantantra serves to emphasize the transcendence of the Supreme over the other
reals, and Its immanence in them. It also lays emphasis on the primacy of the Supreme as the
para-siddhanta of Madhva’s thought, and the teachings about the finite as constituting the
apara-siddhanta, subsidiary truths. This distinguishes from the Nirvisesadvaita of Samkara
and the Visistadvaita of Ramanuja.

30
 According to Madhva, God is the creator, preserver, etc of the entire world of matter
and souls. World-experience is real. Souls are many and are dependent forever on the
Supreme. They are delivered from bondage by His grace. Salvation is a state of active
enjoyment of supreme felicity. Madhva quotes extensively the related Vedic hymns that
support these points of view.

Visnu is Madhva’s equivalent of the God of religion, the Brahman of the Vedanta and
the One Supreme Real, Ekam Sat of the Veda. He correlates the various descriptions of
Vedic gods in cosmic terms as the sarvanamavan, the Being who is diversely sung by
different names. He equates the Sarvanamavan with Visnu, in the etymological sense of the
term as the Being which is unlimited by time, space and auspicious attributes, vyapta. He
establishes, on the basis of Vedic hymns, that monotheism of Visnu is the true faith of Vedic
saints

The doctrine of sarvanamavan does not do away with the other gods. They are not
banished. They are simply brought into a position of subordinate relation to the One
Supreme, as created by the One, as ‘sharers in one life or as obedient subjects or as ministers
of One Lord’. Belief in the sarvanamavada is consistent with admission of the existence of
‘minor’ gods, by agreeing to a dual application of names, vrtti-dvaya in their primary and
secondary senses. However, there is no systematic hierarchy of the gods worked out in the
Vedic hymns. Madhva, therefore, seeks devatataratamya in the Ekayana and Pancaratra
texts. In the Pancaratrika view, there is no distinction of substance and attributes in God or
among His various manifestations. Madhva explains this view as svagatabhedabhava,
absence of internal distinctions or savisesabheda, colourful identity of attributes.

The metaphysics of Pancaratra is essentially theistic. Samkara himself accepts its

tenets in the main, except those relating to the creation of the jivas. He states that the
Pancaratrikas consider Vasudeva to be the Supreme Being with all auspicious attributes. The
Paramasamhita establishes that the metaphysics of the Pancaratra is realistic, recognizing an
eternal matter, prakrti and equally coexistent souls. The individual soul transmigrates on
account of beginningless karma associated with vasanas, at the will of God. For removal of
these vasanas, a certain power emanates from the Brahman and, impelled by His will, it so
works within the inner microcosm of man that the jiva is ultimately freed from bondage, and
his personality and innate bliss are revealed in full.

What the Pancaratra texts convey, says Madhva, is that in the state of samsara, the
jivas suffer from estrangement and discord with the Brahman the Supreme, and attain
complete harmony with the Lord in moksa. On the practical side, the Pancaratra establishes
the cult of naiskarmya. As Pancaratra lays emphasis on rituals and worship, its naiskarmya is
radically different from the cult of ‘no-action’. That such action and worship are not
confined to any particular state, but may be continued even after siddhi or moksa, is the
keynote of the Pancaratra. The cult of naiskarmya is not from turning away from action, but
from the forbidden fruit. The emphasis is on change from karmatyaga to phalatyaga, nivrtti-
marga. Madhva states, on the authority of the Brahmavaivarta Purana, that the Bhagavad-
Gita is, in fact, a summary of the teachings of the Pancaratra.

The Gita defines naiskarmya, not as abstention from karma, but disinterested
performance. All desires are not bad. The desire for righteousness is divine. The Gita
repudiates the view that the world is untrue. It does not assert anywhere that the Brahman is
the only reality, and all else that appears is false and unreal. The word maya is used in three

31
passages in the Gita. But its meaning differs from the interpretation of the word by Samkara.
Maya is described in the Gita as being of the nature of gunas. The Gita does not subscribe to
the view that the world may be regarded as the manifestation of maya in the sense of illusion.
‘The eternality and plurality of purusas is assumed in it’. The teaching of the Gita about the
triple purusas – ksara, aksara and purusottama – makes the distinction ‘within the world of
experience’, and in the scriptures. This is considered to be the ‘most precious secret,
guhyatamam sastram’. Even Samkara concedes that it is the very essence ‘not only of the
Gita, but also of the entire Veda’.

Dasgupta says, ‘I am myself inclined to believe that the dualistic interpretations were
probably more faithful to the Sutras than those of Samkara’. S. Radhakrishnan says, ‘there is
strong support for the view that Badarayana looks upon the difference between the Brahman
and the souls as ultimate, something that persists even when the soul is released’. Samkara
and his commentators have expressly admitted that the language and the thought of the sutras
are, for the most part, dualistic. There are not more than a couple of sutras which can be said
to be unquestionably monistic in tenor. Even these sutras do not admit of the kind of identity
interpreted by Samkara of the Brahman, and the jiva. The commentary of Bhaskara on the
sutras looks upon the world of matter and souls as a direct transformation of the Brahman
and, therefore, quite as real as the Brahman Itself, but perishable.

S.Radhakrishnan argues that the nirguna and the saguna, the nirvisesa and the
savisesa aspects of the Brahman, are valid forms of the same Reality. Isvara is the creative
dynamic aspect of the Brahman. He is not the Brahman falsely regarded, due to ignorance, as
the cause and controller of the universe. Maya is the real creative energy of Isvara. Creation
is a losing forth of what is already contained in the nature of the Brahman. The individual is a
ray of spiritual light and so obviously real. It is not separate from the Brahman. It is not also
an unreal reflection of the Brahman in maya. Not only is the individual self real, but it keeps
its distinctive individuality in release. This kind of philosophical interpretation is not
consistent with the Nirvisesadvaita and the mithyatva of Samkara, but reinforces the Dvaita
thought.

32
 6. Madhva Hagiology
Madhva states in one of his works that his system traces its origin in the ancient
monotheism of the Bhagavatas. For all practical purposes, Madhva himself is the first
historical founder and exponent of the system of philosophy associated with his name.
Manimanjari and the Mutt Lists name some predecessors such as Srihamsa (Narayana),
Brahma, etc with Acyutaprajna alias Purusottamatirtha preceding Anandatirtha alias
Madhvacarya. The last in the line is Purusottamatirtha also called Acyutapreksa who was the
sannyasa-guru of Madhva. The theistic philosophy preached by Madhva has a long and
continuous history behind it and goes back to the original and basic literature of Sanatana-
dharma, the Vedasastra. But there is no evidence of previous literary activity of individual
writers connecting the works of Madhva with these original sources of his system, unlike
Samkara and Ramanuja. Incidentally, Madhva bypasses his predecessors including
Acyutaprajna and claims to have received his inspiration directly from Badarayana-Vyasa.
Throughout his works, he acknowledges no teachers other than Vyasa. The history of Dvaita
literature proper, thus, begins with Madhva.

1238 - 1318 A.D. appears to be the most acceptable spell of life of Madhva. The
Madhva Vijaya of Narayana Panditacarya is the earliest biography of Madhva. He was born
of Tulu Brahmin parents in the village Pajaka near Udipi in the present Karnataka state. His
original name is Vasudeva. The call of the spirit took him to Acyutaprajna who initiated him
as a monk under the name of Purnaprajna. Soon, he became well versed in Vedantic classics.
He was then made the head of the Mutt of Acyutapreksa under the name of Anandatirtha.
Later he assumed the name Madhva, by which he is more widely known, being synonymous
with his claim to be an avatar of Vayu. He travelled widely in India and acquired several
disciples in the process. After the death of his parents, his brother and several other Taulava
disciples were ordained monks who became the founders of what later came to be known as
the Asta-Mutts of Udipi.

His message to the world had been delivered, and he had the satisfaction of seeing it
well received. He was honoured in his own native region and beyond. His works had been
placed on an enduring basis. He had gathered round him a band of ardent disciples who
carried the light of his teachings all over the country. Charging his disciples with his last
message in the closing words of the Aitareya Upanisad ‘not to sit still but to go forth, and
preach and spread the truth among the deserving’, Madhva disappeared from view on Bahula
Navami of Magha in Pingala 1318 A.D.

Madhva had set up the Krsna Mutt in Udipi and, towards the close of his life, had
ordained eight monks for the conduct of worship of Krsna at his Krsna Mutt. These monks
established lines of their own in due course, and these lines of ascetics became the precursors
of the Ashta Mutts of later times. The Swamis of the Ashta Mutts hold office as High Priests
of the Krsna Mutt by turns, for two years each. At the Krsna Mutt in Udipi and the Ashta
Mutts, thus, a unique and well organized system of religious worship has been established.
The Ashta Mutts are stated to be Palimar Mutt, Adamar Mutt, Krsnapur Mutt, Puttige Mutt,
Sirur Mutt, Sode Mutt, Kanur Mutt and Pejavar Mutt, named after their original location, but
later moved to Udipi itself.

While the Vedanta systems of philosophy of Samkara and Ramunaja are known as
Advaita and Visistadvaita with no association of their names, the Dvaita system of
philosophy, Siddhanta has been associated with the name of Madhva. His followers are

33
known to this day as Madhvas, essentially following Madhva’s theism. The ascetics
associated with Madhva Mutts are titled Tirthas.

Madhavacharya (Vidyaranya) designates the philosophy of Madhva as

Purnaprajnadarsana in his Sarvadarsanasamgraha.

34
 7. Works of Madhva-Sarvamula

An Outline
The works of Madhva are thirty seven, collectively called Sarvamula. They constitute
the very basis of the Dvaita Vedanta also called as Madhva Siddhanta (System of
Philosophy), Madhvaism. They may be classified as Commentaries on Prasthanatraya; Dasa-
Prakaranas (ten short monographs); Commentaries on Bhagavatapurana and Mahabharata,
and Adhyatmic interpretation of the first three Adhyayas of Rigveda; and Stotras, and Works
on Worship and Rituals.

The commentaries on Prasthanatraya consist of two commentaries on the Gita, four

works on the Sutras, and Bhashyas on ten Upanisads. The Dasa-Prakaranas elucidate the
basic principles of his system, its logic, ontology, theory of knowledge, etc. They also render
dialectic refutations of certain fundamental theories of Monism. One of them, Karma
Nirnaya is a constructive exposition of Madhva’s theory of Vedic exegesis in its higher
aspects touching the adhyatmic interpretation of the Karma-kanda with reference to the
Aitareya Brahmana. The Visnu Tattva Nirnaya and Tattvoddyota are brilliant expositions of
his Siddhanta, and powerful critiques of Advaita.

In the third category are placed his short commentary on Bhagavata Purana, his
metrical epitome of Mahabharata from a new theosophical angle and his original
monotheistic and adhyatmic interpretation of the first three Adhyayas of Rigveda.

In the fourth category are placed Stotras, and Works on Worship and Rituals.

Madhva’s works are characterized by brevity of expression and directness, devoid of

all literary flourish and bombast. He explains his texts only where such explanations are
absolutely necessary, and to avoid a possible misconstruction. He expands the ideas of the
original texts with apt and ample quotations from a variety of sources of the sacred literature,
extant and other. He does not comment on texts whose anvaya, purport and philosophical
significance are obvious.

Madhva skips some links in argument occasionally in the swift march of his thought.
There is, however, a touch of deliberate archaism and eccentricity in his grammar and
diction. These eccentricities are not ignorant lapses, but deliberate departures from the norm,
which could be legitimized with reference to special vyakarana-sutras and sanctions. But
they are a few and far between. All of them have been suitably vindicated by his main
commentator Jayatirtha on the authority and sanctions of Panini, the Mahabhashya and other
sources. But for the illuminating commentaries of Jayatirtha on Madhva’s works, in the 14th
century A.D., it would have been difficult for the philosophy of Madhva to have risen to that
position of importance as a vital limb of the Vedanta, which it did, in the succeeding
centuries.

Every point of view and detail of doctrine in Madhva’s works is supported and
amplified by him in the light of quotations drawn from a large body of ancillary literature of
both Vedic and post-Vedic periods. Many of these sources are now inaccessible. There is
difficulty of tracing many of the quotations in the available sources, too. This raises a

35
problem as to the genuineness of these passages, and the degree and extent of their reliability,
and the acceptability of the new line of interpretation of the Vedanta, based on them.

In fairness to Madhva, it is to be stated that while the foundations of his theistic

system and its general and main outlines are well supported by the available literature of the
Vedic and post-Vedic periods, its logical and philosophical superstructure is built upon
independent philosophical cogitation and analysis of concepts. They bear examination
independently of textual authority. The appeal to texts occurs only in respect of purely
theological issues and interpretations of disputed texts, but this does not affect the
metaphysical bases of his thought, or his ontology and theory of knowledge. Though most of
the works quoted by Madhva in the course of his interpretation are now not extant, the
possibility of their still representing an old and distinctive line of theistic interpretation on the
philosophy of the Prasthanatraya cannot be over-looked. There is nothing in the extant works
that is overtly hostile to his line of interpretation.

There is no linguistic or philosophical ground to discredit these non-traceable

quotations as fabrications of an individual commentator, however clever he might have been.
The quotations disclose a natural orderliness of thought, internal variation of style,
peculiarities of idiom, syntax and vocabulary in common with the genre of works to which
they pertain, and many other indications of genuineness. The large number of works so
named in the variety of topics with which they deal, the natural ease and flow of the
quotations, the varying lengths of passages cited, some in isolation as single verses, the
unfaltering precision of references to particular context from which the passages are taken,
and allusions even to the names of certain interlocutors in some contexts, and the general
agreement of language and idiom of the citations, etc are sufficient reasons to establish the
bona-fides of the quotations. They, therefore, carry due weight and recognition in estimating
the value and importance of Madhva’s line of interpretation, and the systematization of
theistic thought propounded by him.

It is significant that the genuineness of these sources does not appear to have ever
been called in question by any of his critics in his own days. When alive, he had to encounter
serious opposition to his views from the leading vedantins of the day. But there is no trace of
opposition to, or distrust of, the sources on which he propounded his views, and version of
Vedanta, in any of the writings of the older vedantins, of the period of Madhva or his
immediate disciples including Jayatirtha. The Sarvadarsanasamgraha of Madhva gives an
honourable place to the philosophy of Madhva in the history of Indian thought. It would not
have done so, had its textual bona-fides been open to doubt in those days. Nor do the works
of Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha disclose the least sign of such an opinion having been
entertained in any quarter. This is significant as Jayatirtha is alive to the criticisms on the
Bhashya and other works of Madhva, including objections taken to the ungrammatical
prayogas there, and addresses himself to the task of meeting them. He would not have
ignored if there had been any comment in that period as to the spuriousness of these
quotations.

It is known that the erstwhile champions of Advaita like Padmanabhatirtha and

Trivikrama Panditacarya argued with Madhva and afterwards accepted his system. They
would not have been convinced by a heap of fabricated texts, if that was all Madhva had to
show in his support. Nor would they have tamely submitted to them. The attempt to
discredit the sources of Madhva is of much later origin, from the days of Ayyappa Diksita.
He was the first to raise the cry which was taken up by others like Bhattoji and Venkatanatha.

36
The criticism of the genuineness of the sources of Madhva apparently suffers from sectarian
prejudice. It is also the failure to take note of the enormous loss of original texts in many
branches of learning in Sanskrit literature owing to Muslim vandalism and similar causes.

Madhva draws heavily upon the vast literature of the Samhitas and Pancaratra. A
good many of these rare works are still fortunately preserved in various libraries awaiting
publication and exploration. A careful investigation of the available Pancaratra literature
vindicates the bona-fides of Madhva’s sources to a great extent. It is certainly preposterous
to dismiss all untraceable texts of Madhva as forgeries and fabrications, without due research.
Some of the non-extant sources mentioned by Madhva were known to other writers, too, both
earlier and later. The charge of fabrication is, thus, too sweeping and uncharitable.

Some important works like the Brahmatarka, not cited in his first work Gita Bhashya,
are found quoted in subsequent works, ranking as his important authorities. This shows they
were secured by him at a later stage. The works of Advaitananada bear testimony to this
specific possibility. Madhva states very clearly in his Mahabharata Tatparya that he was a
patient collector of manuscripts from all parts of the country, and possessed a unique
collection of manuscripts.

It is very relevant to conclude that there must have been sufficient basis for these
sources utilized by Madhva. Many causes might have conspired to throw them into oblivion,
including the ascendency of Advaita for some centuries before him. Having been largely
utilized only by him, they had not evidently found a wider circle of acceptance, and remained
unfamiliar to or ignored, suppressed or tampered with by others indifferent or hostile to his
view point. Madhva himself says in his Mahabharata Tatparya how the textual traditions had
suffered and were suffering interference, interpolation, overwriting, mutilation and tampering
with.

37
Gita Bhashya
Madhva wrote two commentaries on the Gita - a Bhashya and a Tatparya. The Gita
Bhashya is the earliest work he made his debut in the philosophical world. This opens with
salutations to Visnu and Vyasa. This work is a revolution in thought and method, and is as
brief and precise as possible. He makes up for the brevity of his comments by quotations
from numerous rare sources, not utilized by those who had gone before him. His style is
peculiar to himself, terse and somewhat truncated. He does not indulge in long explanations,
but puts down notes and comments on important points of interpretation of key words and
phrases, or parts of phrases. He does not comment on all the verses of the texts, but only a
few of them which need critical comment or elucidation. His Bhashya, thus, marks a new
departure in the field.

At the outset, Madhva describes in the Gita Bhashya the great epic Mahabharata as
Mahabharataparijatamadhubhuta. The Bhashya is in three satkas. The first one comprising
six chapters deals with performance of karma in the true spirit of karmayoga. The next satka
deals with the majesty of God, His manifestations, vibhutis, viswarupa, etc. The last satka
deals with nature of beliefs and practices not conducive to spiritual uplift. The work
concludes with an insistence on bhakti as the innermost means of achieving moksa.

An outstanding contribution of Madhva to Gita-thought is his interpretation of its

theory of Karmayoga. He defines its status vis-à-vis the nishtas of Samkhya and Yoga. He
repudiates the view of Samkara that such karma is essentially applicable to avidyavastha
alone. He stresses that even this nishkama karma is of less importance than jnana, being only
a step to it. According to Madhva, the final view of Gita is not jnanakarmasamuccaya, not
even jnanakarmasadhya-bhaktiyoga, but pure aparoksa-jnana alone, brought about by
bhaktinishkamakarma. He emphasizes that the aparoksa-jnana helps in cleansing the mind
and helping the emergence of bhakti and jnana. When practiced after the attainment of
aparoksa jnana, it is conducive to the manifestation of fresh aspects of bliss in moksa.

Aparoksa-jnana, direct vision of God, is, for Madhva, the ultimate means of moksa.
This is attained in two ways, by a life of complete renunciation and meditation, or by gradual
attainment of jnana thorough an active life of karma enjoined by the Sastras, according to
one’s station. While the first way is open to a very few highly evolved souls like Sanaka, the
rest of humanity has to work its way up through karma. There is nothing to be ashamed of in
an active life on earth provided it is nobly lived. Karmayoga points the way to such a life.
The path of karmayoga is in the discharge of one’s karma – nitya, naimittika and kamya –
without the least desire for fruit thereof, and eschewing all notions of ‘I’ and ‘mine’. The
true karma-yogin looks upon himself as a mere pratibimba of God, whose every wish and
activity is derived from and dependent on that of the Supreme, Bimbadhinakriyavan. God is
the real independent doer and enjoyer in all cases. It is the performance of one’s duties with
this consciousness that constitutes true ‘naiskarmya’, not mere abstention from karma.
Naiskarmya raises the soul from selfishness to God-consciousness. It makes the aspirant see
God everywhere, and everything is God. It trains him to look on himself as no more than an
instrument of divine dispensation. It thus prepares him for aparoksa-jnana through mental
and spiritual cleansing.

Madhva develops the theory, may be peculiar, that is never the intention of karma-
kanda to stop with the mere fleeting rewards of heaven and make for a never-ending
transmigration. Such narrow view of the Veda is Veda-vada as decried by Sri Aurobindo.

38
Madhva stresses that the results promised in connection with the performance of sacrifices
like jyotistoma are not to be interpreted too literally. They are to be viewed as so many
inducements to attract the attention of average humanity which is always impressed with the
promise of rewards, puspita-vak. He finds support for this view in the passages of the
Bhagavata, Gita, Vedic texts, etc. He looks upon the greatness and majesty of God as the
central thesis of the Gita, indeed of all Sastra. This is a new and far-reaching interpretation of
the practical philosophy of the Gita. It appears from Samkara’s commentary on the Gita that
an identical view had been held by certain commentators that preceded Samkara himself.
Credit is, therefore, due to Madhva for having revived the old view and presented it in such a
striking manner.

Madhva identifies the true karmayoga of the Lord with the nivrtti-marga, and the
narrow hedonism of the Mimamsakas with pravrtti-marga. He quotes the authority of
Vyasa-smrti (not extant), for this interpretation. He does not confine karmayoga to
avidyavasta of Samkara, but looks upon it as the right kind of wisdom and action. Even the
great jnanins like Janaka and Priyavrta (Bhagavata) are shown to have taken to niskama-
karma, at the bidding of God, to set an example to others. This is a new orientation of the
practical philosophy of the Gita, more than anticipating the ‘energism’ of the Gita, according
to Tilak’s Gitarahasya.

39
Gita Tatparya
Madhva’s Gita Tatparya (Nirnaya) is a later and more discursive prose commentary
on the Gita. It seeks to maintain the soundness of the Bhashya interpretations with fresh
arguments and quotations from the Brahmatarka and other works, not utilized earlier. While
the Gita Bhashya comments on select verses of the Gita citing pratikas, the Gita Tatparya
merely brings out the gist of the verses and expands it with extraneous quotations. The Gita
Tatparya augments the interpretations of the former with new and additional ones. While the
Gita Bhashya rarely and impliedly notices the interpretations of other schools, the Gita
Tatparya pays greater attention to the refutation of rival interpretations, mainly of Samkara
and Bhaskara.

The Gita Tatparya emphasizes the mahatatparya, the central thought through the twin
principles of theism – the immanence and transcendence of God, both vividly explained in it.
It states that the Visvarupadhyaya and the Purusottama-yoga emphasize the transcendental
aspect while Chapters VII and X of the Gita elucidate God’s immanence in the cosmos. The
metaphysical dependence of the jivas on God is the basis on which Madhva interprets the
second chapter of the Gita, and he resolves its many seeming contradictions of thought
between activism and absorption. He vigourously repudiates the idea that a karmi can do
without jnana, or a jnani without karma. There is an element of the one in the other.
Efficiency implies wisdom. Accordingly Madhva defines karmayoga as karma-pracuro-
yogah. Krishna declares in the Gita that one who is efficient in either reaps the benefits of
both. Madhva stresses that this is not possible unless both are intertwined, and not mutually
exclusive, as Samkara would have it. The jnanin, too, has his share of karma, though it is
mostly inward.

Madhva establishes nivrtti-karma to be a life of healthy participation in karma

dedicated to God. This is the exclusive contribution of Madhva. He quotes from Vyasasmrti
to establish the true and original nature of nivrtti-marga and naiskarmya to be identical with
niskama-karma.

The Gita Tatparya is a powerful critique of the doctrine of Monism that all experience
is illusory. Madhva contends that our sufferings and enjoyments in life are quite real and
vivid. There is no justification for dismissing them as illusory. All immediate illusions in
experience proceed from the body towards external reality. But the self and its inmost
experiences are not subject to such illusions. No one doubts ‘am I myself or not’, or mistakes
oneself for someone else. An experience can be rejected as illusory only when there is clear
proof to that effect. The experiences of pleasure and pain are subjective, intensely personal
and are intuited by the saksi.

The work elucidates Madhva’s conception of causality and refutes the Anirvacaniya
theory. It explains causation with reference to the existence of something in some form. This
does not involve the possibility of causation of absolutely non-existent things like the hare’s
horn. Causation is meaningless and impossible without a cause-stuff, upadanadravya. To
that extent, it is sat-karanavada. But the effect is not preexistent in the cause, qua effect,
karyatmana. It is a novelty, and has come in there de novo. To this extent, it is asat-karya.
The cause and the effect are thus different-cum-identical, bhinna-abhinna, as both kinds of
relation are experienced.

40
 The refutation of the anirvacaniya theory leads to a critique of the Nirvisesa-
Brahman. What is said to be devoid of all characteristics cannot be shown to exist in any
sense of the term. Its existence must be referred to in words, or indirectly suggested. Even
such expressivity, or even suggestibility, constitutes characterization. If they do not amount
to characterization, propositions such as ‘The Brahman Is’ will be redundant. We cannot
establish the Nirvisesa-Brahman by suggestion. It is logically impossible to suggest what is
absolutely inexpressible. It is not possible to contend that such an inexpressible thing is,
however, established by right of self-evidence. Even self-evidence has to be established on
the basis of actual proof. If self-evidence is something different from the thing itself, there is
the admission of some characteristic, and the ‘thing’ is no longer devoid of traits. If it is the
same as the thing itself, it must be equally open to proof. If no proof of its ‘self-evidence’ is
available, and if all that is meant by being ‘self-evident’ is the negation of extraneous proof,
self-luminosity is tantamount to absence of luminosity. If self-luminosity were to be
established by means of arthapatti, it must be either a logical sequent, or by means of other
independent proof. In either case, self-luminosity must be knowable by the self. But this is
against the concept of Advaita that the subject of all experience cannot itself be experienced.
Madhva emphasizes that knowledge is never experienced or intuited without reference to a
knower and a ‘known’ or ‘knowable’. Knowledge that is devoid of both a subject and an
object is utter void.

41
Sutra-Prasthana
General

Madhva’s commentary on the Brahmasutras is a new departure in the history of the

Vedantic thought and interpretation. It is written in a plain style, devoid of all ornament and
flourish. It is a departure from the commentaries of Samkara, Bhaskara and Ramanuja. His
approach is that the readers are to take a comprehensive view of the Sutras by themselves and
then decide upon the line of interpretation that would do justice to their plan, purpose and
wording.

Madhva holds the Sutras in the highest esteem. He identifies them with the para-
vidya of the Upanisads, and assigns to them a place and importance altogether unique. He
regards them as nirnayaka sastra and, as such, of more decisive authority than the rest of the
sacred literature which is nirneya sastra. Madhva has written four works on the Sutras –
Brahmasutra Bhashya (BSB), Nyaya Vivarana (NV), Anu Vyakhyana (AV) and Anu
Bhashya (AB).

Madhva records his own interpretation and critical examination of the works of his
predecessors in these four separate works. The fact that he had not only to present his own
views, but to refute convincingly powerful commentators such as Samkara, Ramanuja,
Bhaskara induced him to distribute his critical, constructive and expository contributions to
the interpretations of the Sutras over the above first three well planned works of definite
scope and proportion. The BSB, AV and NV stand together to give a complete and proper
idea of his interpretation of the Vedanta, and to realize his importance as a commentator on
the Sutras.The Anu Vyakhyana discusses, amplifies and critically examines the
interpretations of his Bhashya, without which no proper estimate of his work as an interpreter
of the Sutras is possible. The Brahma Sutra Bhashya is written in a terse style and is
designed to be supplemented by the Anuvyakhyana.

Brahmasutra Bhashya

Madhva’s commentary on the Sutras differs widely from all those of his predecessors,
twenty one mentioned by Narayana Panditacarya, including Samkara, Bhaskara and
Ramanuja, both in the general drift of interpretation and in the nature of topics raised for
discussion under the various adhikaranas. The sources from which these topics are chosen
for discussion cover a wide range of literature embracing the Samhitas, Aaranyakas, Khilas
and Puranas. He differs from his predecessors on many vital and crucial points of doctrine
and interpretation. A few instances are cited hereunder.

i) Madhva extends the sense of ‘adi’ to include five other important cosmic functions
of the Supreme, namely, niyamana, jnana, ajnana, bandha and moksa. This is an innovation
as these are clearly given in the Prastanatraya as specific cosmic attributes of the Brahman.
Any elucidation and complete interpretation of adi must include and take notice of them. For
a seeker, moksahetutva is a more important characteristic of the Brahman than the creation or
destruction. This marks Madhva’s greater philosophical vision than others.

ii) In the fifth adhikarana, Madhva establishes that the Brahman is directly denoted
and expressed, vacya by the entire Sastra. He quotes other texts, too, which teach that the
Brahman is directly expressed by the entire Sastra. He argues that the Brahman, being

42
aupanisada, knowable only through scripture, there can be no other way of approach to
knowing the Brahman except through words, sabda. Laksanavrtti, secondary application, is
impossible in the event of a given thing being inexpressible by any word. All laksanavrtti is
basically connected with vacatva. A reality that is essentially and absolutely inexpressible,
avacya can never be brought within the range of laksana. For this reason, he deals with the
logical and philosophical objections to samanvaya at this stage itself, and treats the first five
adhikaranas in the beginning as introductory, adhyayapadapitha. He explains the whole
iksatyadhikarana from the point of view of vacatyatvasamarthama of the Brahman. The
different sutras fall into their proper place in the argument.

Madhva states that the Brahman cannot be regarded as asabdam, but must be accepted
as saravasabdamukhyavacyam, on account of Its being the object of knowledge of all Sastras.
The iksaniyatva in the concerned sutra pertains to the Supreme Being alone and not to any
other, being associated with the three gunas, the Sabala-Brahman or the jivatman. The word
atman primarily denotes the Supreme Brahman and cannot be gauna, associated with the
three gunas. The Supreme Brahman alone should be sought by the seeker eschewing all
other values. This means that the a-gauna Atman is the ultimate object of knowledge of all
the Sastras, vacya and muktaprapya. Another sutra specifically refers to one characteristic of
the Supreme ‘One that emerges from and merges into oneself’. Madhva stresses on the
Infinite (Purna) coming out of itself and going back into itself, and always remaining the
same Infinite right through. Another sutra affirms that there is gatisamanya, complete
agreement in the teaching of the scripture about the a-gouna alone being the mukhyavacya,
jneya and muktagamya, and that there is no dissent to this view anywhere in the scripture.
The last sutra of the adhikarana supports vacyatva of the Brahman, that it is ‘heard’. Thus,
according to Madhva’s line of interpretation, the entire exposition of the iksatyadhikarana
has inner consistency, and is free from logical and contextual objections.

Madhva’s interpretation of the Sutras establishes that the Brahman is not merely the
ultimate and primary cause of the evolutionary series. He is the proximate cause as well at
every stage of the evolutionary series. He is, therefore, entitled to be designated by such
terms as akasa, vayu, agni, etc. This brings about appropriate samanvaya of terms and marks
relating to the Brahman.

Dasgupta states that the Vayu-purana and the Ahirbudhnya apply ‘epithets like
prakrti, pradhana, prasuti, yoni, ksetra, aksara and avyakta to the Brahman’. This
establishes that Madhva’s interpretation of the prakrtyadhikarana of the Sutras faithfully
represents ‘the oldest traditional outlook of the philosophy of the Upanisads and the
Brahmasutras preserved in the Puranic tradition’. Madhva’s approach is integral to the
interpretation of the samanvayadhyaya, and of all its padas, without any exception, in terms
of direct samanvaya of names and epithets. Madhva’s interpretation of the reality of dream
experiences and the role of bhakti in regard to relevant sutras is a substantial contribution to
correct understanding of the Sutras.

Madhva brings the entire Veda-sastra, not only the earlier Upanisads, under the
purview of the Sutras. A text from the Skanda cited by Madhva asserts that the Brahmasutras
are meant to be decisive of the purport of the entire sacred literature. This must be the
significance of the term visvatomukh applied to the Brahmasutras. The true sense is that a
sutra should be able to explain the largest number of concurrent data that could be brought
under a single aphorism. The jijnasa-sutra, for instance, should cover all texts emphasizing
the need for enquiry into the Brahman, wherever they might be found in the Veda, Upanisads

43
or Puranas. Madhva’s reference to the Samhitas of the Rigveda and other sources is,
therefore, no offence to known interpretational canon. On the other hand, it enriches the
thought-content of the Sutras and widens their scope. Madhva speaks of the loss of ‘arsa’
tradition of Vedic interpretation. This is echoed by the modern mystic interpreter of the
Rigveda, Sri Aurobindo, and amply supported by Prof Maryla Falk. D.T.Tatacarya asserts
that ‘we cannot escape the conclusion that this Veda (Rigveda) is as much concerned with the
Brahman as the Upanisads’.

Madhva emphasizes that the conclusion (anta) of the Vedas and the Upanisads being
the same, the Brahman must be understood in the light of the true teachings of the whole
Sastra embracing all the Vedas (Samhitas), Upanisads, etc. A merely literal or superficial
understanding of either the Vedas or the Upanisads will not represent the true nirnaya of the
texts on the nature of the Brahman. He holds that the correct nirnaya of the entire sacred lore
can only be obtained with the help, itikarana of the Brahmasutras which furnish the master-
key to unlocking the hidden truths of the Sastra. Without the use of this key, neither the
Vedas nor the Upanisads would yield their true siddhanta. He insists that ‘the Samhitas are
as important to his doctrine as the Upanisads’. It is certainly not because ‘it is very difficult
for him to find in the Upanisads, a support for his doctrine’. The Upanisadic texts cited by
Madhva clearly show that he has not ruled out the Upanisads from being treated as Vedanta.

Madhva interprets the Brahmasutras as laying down that the Brahman is the one
Independent Cause in creation and all the other factors like prakrti, purusa, kala, etc being
metaphysically dependent accessories. The proposition is purposely put in a double negative
form, tad-ananyatvam. The Independent Cause is not different from or other than the
Brahman, because of the word arambhana and other grounds. This emphasizes the point that
the Brahman alone is the Independent Cause and that the rest are, by implication,
metaphysically dependent on It. There is no specific affirmation of the Brahman being the
only Independent Cause, earlier. This affirmation is necessary to dispose of an objection
which presupposes and involves the existence of other pre-existing or co-existent causes,
independent of the producer, on the analogy of production in general. The affirmation
through negation of the contrary that the Brahman alone is the Independent Cause clinches
the matter beyond doubt.

Madhva visualizes the sublime heights of unity in the Supreme for the entire world of
matter and souls in virtue of its deriving its very existence, know-ability, activity, etc from
the One Supreme, the source of all existence, knowledge and activity. This concept has the
merit of not doing any violence with the pramanas which establish and ratify the validity and
reality of world experience and its values. It does not deny the world of matter and souls as
unreality and a myth, in order to achieve an abstract, artificial unity with the Supreme. It is a
living sense of unity born of the full realization of the world’s metaphysical dependence on
the Brahman. This concept harmonizes the reality of the universe, and of the souls, with the
transcendence and immanence of the Brahman. It is a practical solution of recognizing the
absolute majesty and independence of the Supreme and bringing the world of matter and
souls to a realization of its metaphysical dependence on the Supreme.

The Sutrakara uses the ideas of amsa and abhasa to define the relation between the
jiva and the Brahman. He is said to define amsa ‘in such a way as to make room for both
difference and identity’. It is certainly not in the sense of difference and identity, being both
equally true, in the literal sense, and in an equal measure. Madhva states that difference and
identity cannot both be accepted in their primary sense equally. Difference must be accepted

44
as essential, and identity as figurative, based on intimacy of relation due to resemblance,
primacy and independence. An equal and literal emphasis on both difference and identity
could never be laid, without logical inconsistency, between two distinct reals such as the
Brahman and the jiva. The concept advocated by Madhva involves no logical
interdependence and other defects.

Madhva accepts ‘difference’ as a natural and primary fact of experience of the saksi
and not merely of the senses, and interprets the ‘identity’ in conformity with the scriptural
texts that teach the difference between God and the souls. He also defines saksi-pratyaksa of
difference, which is inviolable as a primary condition of all certitude, in terms of ‘amsatva’.
Madhva introduces the idea of amsa to rationalize the scriptural references to ‘identity’ with
the basic fact of their foundational difference established by experience, reason and
revelation. Amsatva is not a substitute for both, but of ‘identity’ alone. He makes it clear that
amsatva stands for a peculiar relation of metaphysical dependence, similarity and ‘belonging
to’ God.

Anu Vyakhyana

The Anu Vyakhyana is both a dissertation on the Sutras, and a critical commentary
and supplement to the Brahmasutra Bhashya. It is a classic in its own way, being an
interpretation and a criticism. Each line and phrase of the work is a veritable seed of ideas.
It is unique for its meteoric swiftness of thought and variety of ideas. It has logic, dialectic
fire, unity, eloquence and a certain stately music of words. Criticism and constructive
exposition are its twin features.

Madhva deals with all shades of Advaitic thought and interpretation in this work only
to refute each one of them. He refutes in detail both the theories of ekajivajnana and
bahujivajnana. He also refutes the fundamental theories of the Advaita-Vedanta such as the
identity of the jiva and the Brahman, the concept of anirvacaniya, the theory of Error, the
falsity of the world, and the concept of the untrustworthiness of empirical means of proof,
etc.

As for the doctrine of Identity, Madhva draws a sharp contrast between the miserable
life of man on earth and the perfect eternal peace and freedom of God. It is sheer blasphemy
for a creature like man to think of identity with God. Each moment of life, man is aware of
his imperfections and limitations. These experiences can never be dismissed as illusory.
They are felt to be real and true by the innermost self of man, the saksi, and are never proved
to be false within one’s own conscious experience. He says typically in Bhamati that a
hundred texts cannot make a crow white. Any number of texts which appear to declare the
Brahman and the jiva to be one cannot be accepted at their face value. The consolidated
human experience attests to this difference, and no philosophy can flout it with impunity.

The conviction that the jiva is other than the Brahman is not merely an ordinary
experience, pratyaksadrsti, but one derived from the scripture itself, sastradrsti. Scripture,
when and where it speaks of the Brahman and reveals its existence, does so ex hypothesi as
all knowing, all powerful controller of the universe. The ‘identity-texts’ can operate, if at all,
only after the existence of the Brahman is first established. And there is no other way of
establishing it except through Sastra. The texts establishing the nature of the Brahman
omniscient, etc are more powerful than the texts that support the identity of the Brahman and
the jiva, for the reason that the Brahman is the basis of the existence of the jiva. The twin

45
principles of agreement with upajivyasruti and saksi-pratyaksa are the cornerstone of
Madhva’s interpretation of Advaita srutis and their reconciliation with the bheda-srutis (and
experience). They are his unique contribution to the problem of harmonizing the two sets of
Srutis.

As for the attributes, visesas of the Brahman, Madhva opposes the idea of the
Brahman as devoid of all attributes. The Sutrakara ascribes to the Brahman negative
attributes. Madhva argues that if negative attributes can be admitted and raised to the rank of
attributes, gunas, there is no reason why positive ones cannot be admitted, for, every negation
implies an affirmation. An attribute is an adjective that serves to mark off a given thing from
all others. In such event, there is no difference in function between positive and negative
attributes. The ascription of negative attributes to the Brahman will, therefore, leave It
qualified, sa-visesa, if not sa-dvitiya. Besides the negative attributes, the Srutis predicate
positive ones such as satyam, reality; jnanam, knowledge; and anantam, infinitude. There is
no reason, prima facie, to reject the positive attributes, directly. If acceptance of the plurality
of positive attributes shatters the unity of the Brahman, the solution lies not in denying the
characteristics to the Brahman but in trying to find ways of conserving the attributes and their
reality, without prejudice to the homogeneity of the Brahman. This is, in effect, the essence
of Madhva’s doctrine of Savisesabheda of substance and attributes.

The Sutras define the Brahman making It the author of the universe, its protection,
etc. There is room neither for negative attributes, nor for nirguna. The concept of nirguna is
relative to gunas. One cannot think of the Brahman as nirguna, without the aid of gunas.

We cannot have knowledge of the Brahman except through scripture. If the scripture
should ascribe attributes to It, we cannot reject them. If what is taught by scripture is
considered untrue in this respect, what assurance is there that the thesis of identity, said to be
taught by it, may not be equally untrue? The explanation of attributes as being due to a
superimposition does not stand scrutiny, as superimposition itself presupposes some general
characteristics. What is claimed to be wholly and utterly devoid of any sort of characteristics
can never become the subject of superimposition.

The Anuvyakhyana supplements the Brahma Sutra Bhashya in several places. The
former supports the equation of the Brahman with Visnu in two sutras from the Daivi-
Mimamsa or Samkarsana-Kanda as it is called. Madhva seems to be the earliest to cite these
sutras and make use of them. The Visistadvaitic literary tradition also vouches for them.

A passage from Bhagavata, cited by Madhva, settles the definition of the Brahman
proposed by Sutrakara as intimate, svarupa; not accidental, tatasta. Another passage from
the Vadhulasakha identifies the five forms of annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya,
vijnanamaya and anandamaya as the Brahman. The Anu Vyakhyana makes a full statement
of the textual evidence in favour of the sastraic validity of prakrti as a metaphysical category.
Madhva discusses some of his own metaphysical doctrines in the work, and their logical and
ontological bearings. For instance, he discusses his doctrine of visesa, difference as
fundamental to things; saksi, natural gradation of souls; and anandataratamya in release.

There are two interesting references to Saivaite views in the Anu Vyakhyana. But
neither is traceable in Srikantha’s Bhashya. One refers to the way in which the Saiva
philosopher seeks to establish the validity of his Agamas by a process of inference from one
portion of it which is fruitful. The other refers to the interpretation of the Tapaniya Sruti on

46
the basis of which the Saivite seeks to identify the Brahman with Siva. Madhva seeks to
imply that Rudra is subordinate to Visnu, the Brahman.

Nyaya Vivarana

The Nyaya Vivarana is a small prose tract giving the gist of the leading adhikaranas
of the Brahmasutras, and explaining their purvapaksa and siddhanta-yuktis. It deals with the
technical formalities of interpretation. It is later than the Brahma Sutra Bhashya and the Anu
Vyakhyana. It is a clear outline of Madhva’s interpretation of crucial adhikaranas of
Brahmasutras in a direct and telling manner.

Anu Bhashya

The Anu Bhashya is a short metrical summary of the adhikaranas of the

Brahmasutras in thirty four anustubhs, stated to have been composed to meet a special need
of Acyutaprajna. It is divided into four adhyayas, each being the summary of one full chapter
of the Sutras. The first chapter refers to the Supreme Being lauded in various names like
prana, jyotih, etc. The second chapter resolves the conflict of scripture with historical
systems and their doctrines, and the contradictions of the scriptures themselves, in the
statements of the order of creation, dissolution, etc. The third chapter deals with the majesty
of God, and the ways of worship and realization. The last chapter summarizes the views on
laya, and the nature of ‘released state’. The Anu Bhashya may be described as an index to the
Dvaita interpretation of the Sutras. The Tatvamanjari of Raghavendratirtha is the best known
commentary on this text.

47
Bhagavata Tatparya
The Bhagavata Purana is one of the gospels of Vaisnavism and, as such, has been held
in high esteem by all Vaisnava thinkers in India. Madhva’s Bhagavata Tatparya is a selective
commentary. Of a total of about 18,000 verses of the Purana, Madhva has commented only
on about 1,600. His comments are brief and to the point, augmented by quotations from a
variety of sources, particularly the Samhitas of the Pancaratra and their subsidiary literature.
His object is to reconcile the seeming contradictions of the text, and bring out the essentially
theistic and transcendental realism of the Purana. He is, therefore, selective in the choice of
verses of the Purana for commentary based on the tatparya, purport of such crucial passages.

The contradictions in the text of the Purana are perhaps due to an undercurrent of
‘implicit monism’ running through it, emphasizing the transcendent majesty of God to the
exclusion of all else. Simultaneously, the text runs through its basic philosophy of sesvara-
samkhya thought, emphasizing the reality of the created world and its values, and preaching
the ethics of niskama-karma, jnana and bhakti as means of salvation. Madhva reconciles all
the contradictions with the help of his ideology of Svatantra-Advitiya-Brahmavada.

Madhva directs his attention mainly to Skandas X and XI of the Purana, which strike
a strong note of transcendentalism, verging in monism. The verses on Krsna-Uddhava
Samvada (XI) are tinged with monistic phraseology and ideas. Madhva tones down these
passages in line with his transcendental theism of Svatantra-Advitiya-Brahmavada, quoting a
large number of texts from the unexplored Pancaratra literature such as the Brahmatarka,
Tantra-Bhagavata, Mayavaibhava, Padmatantra, Tattvaviveka, Sattattva, Pravrtta, etc.

Madhva’s commentary / philosophy is based on two important teachings. One is the

eternal dependence of nityapadarthas like prakrti, jivas, time, etc on the Brahman and their
very existence, eternity and other characteristics being metaphysically dependent on the
Divine Will. He conceives of the Brahman as the One Independent Reality. The other
teaching is the reconciliation of identity texts with the reality of the world. Madhva quotes
several passages that distinctly recognize the existence of prakrti as a distinctive material
principle, energized by God. Madhva quotes these passages to rebut the charge of
asabdatvam brought against prakrti by other commentators on Brahmasutras. The texts
quoted by him clearly recognize the view that bheda-jnana, realization of difference between
God, souls and the world, constitutes ‘saving-knowledge’. The texts quoted are: ‘All sacred
texts declare the Brahman to be saguna, and infinite in Its attributes……. Bhakti is the
means of redemption……. There is gradation, taratamya in bhakti and moksa……. Moksa
is the realization of innate bliss of selfhood…….. Personality persists in moksa…… The
Supreme is Visnu…….’

In this work Madhva quotes about 195 scriptural texts, including several not well
known works. Depending on the occasion, he raises fundamental questions of religion and
philosophy and discusses them with reference to the said texts.

48
Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya
The epic Mahabharata is called the fifth Veda. In this work, Madhva claims the epic
contains esoteric truths not to be found even in the Veda. He reads an esoteric and allegorical
meaning into it to bring out an important bearing on the theology of his system. His epitome
of the epic is an encyclopedia of the religious and philosophical tenets of the Dvaita system
and its theology. He regards the epic as furnishing the key to the correct interpretation of the
theosophy of the Vedasastra. It is an illustrative commentary on Vedic philosophy and
religion.

In the guise of a historical narrative, the epic gives a vivid allegory of the incessant
conflict between the forces of theism and atheism in life, and the ultimate triumph of theism
and morality. To Madhva, as a Vedantin, the reality of conflict is made keener by the said
forces not merely symbolized by the gods and their enemies presiding over these forces, but
by their being actually worked out by them, in and through their own lives. The persons are
participators in the drama of life, thereby shaping their own destinies, and evolving
themselves to their fullest stature, as units in the cosmic evolution, and serving as models of
good and bad to human beings.

In the prolegomena to his epitome, Madhva elaborates his methodology of a three-

fold interpretation of the epic - historical, allegorical and metaphysical. The historical, astika
interpretation is the one normally associated with the actual epic setting. The allegorical,
manvadi interpretation sees in the internecine warfare of the Kurus and Pandavas the eternal
conflict between the forces of good and bad on the moral plane. The metaphysical, upari-
cara interpretation attempts at an adhyatmic attunement of the text, drawing its inspiration
mainly from those contexts that elaborate the nature of the Supreme.

This work runs into 32 chapters. The first two provide the necessary theosophical
background to Madhva’s exposition of the philosophy of the epic. The next seven chapters
are devoted to a critical summary of the Ramayana. All the other chapters deal with the story
of the Mahabharata. This work is the biggest metrical work of Madhva. He handles in it a
variety of metres with remarkable skill and consistency. It is a kavya in a much larger sense
than the conventional.

The work opens with a brief account of primeval creation, and emphasizes the
supremacy of Visnu. It discusses the relative validity of texts and methods of their
harmonized interpretation. It explains the reasons to set aside the Saiva Puranas when they
contradict the Vedasastra. It contains the three-fold classification of souls accepted by
Madhva. The hierarchical system he has evolved makes room for varying standards of
spiritual fitness and efficiency, as well as means and ends, sadhanas such as karma, jnana
and bhakti, and their fruit. Dana, tirtha, tapas and yajna are declared to be inferior sadhanas.
Unalloyed devotion alone qualifies for salvation. As for bhakti, it makes a classical definition
of what it is and what it is not. As for sadhanas, Brahma alone, as the highest of the souls,
can concentrate on all the infinite attributes of Godhead. Human beings cannot concentrate
on more than four fundamental attributes of Divinity, sat, cit, ananda and atman. The Devas
can concentrate on a few more according to their capacity.

Madhva has thus a difficult task to reconcile the ways of gods to man, with ideas of
godliness itself. It is a problem of ‘ethicizing’ the behaviour of gods and the dealings of the
Avatars. To overcome this problem, Madhva develops a network of theological technique to

49
solve the contradictions between the actual and ideal nature of the deities, between the theory
and practical behaviour of the avatars of God, celebrated in the epics and puranas. With this
technique, he maintains a satisfactory and balanced conception of the Deity. He appears to
be the only Indian thinker who has devoted special attention to this important problem of
theology and shown the necessary resourcefulness in tackling it. The solutions he proposes
rest mostly on textual sanctions and theodicy.

The historical value of this work lies in its being the earliest datable running
commentary on the Mahabharata epic in Sanskrit. It is not, of course, a commentary in the
strict sense of the term. It traverses the entire course of the history of the Kuru-Pandavas,
without omitting any major incidents. Madhva, on his own admission, traversed the entire
length and breadth of the country to collect manuscripts containing various recessions of the
text, and then fixed the standard text for him to follow and comment upon. He was aware
that the texts of the epic he had accessed, in most cases, had been mutilated beyond
recognition or restoration; that numerous interpolations had crept in; and that, therefore, he
had to take all necessary care and guidance in establishing the correct and genuine text.

The first two chapters of this work elucidate the main principles of his interpretation,
and the theological sanctions upon which his ideology rests. The most important tenet is, of
course, the transcendent majesty of God. He is unique. There is no one like Him among all
gods, or any equal to Him. As equality itself is an impossible idea, any identity of the human
self with the Divine is out of question. God is the lord of all. The world of matter and souls
is, for ever, dependent on Him, and is distinct for ever from Him. He is the perfect Being,
endowed with all the auspicious attributes. But this theoretical perfection of the Divine is
often belied by the weaknesses and imperfections betrayed by the avatars of the Divine in
their earthly careers undertaken for redemption of humanity.

In the chapters relating to Ramayana, Madhva upholds the supremacy of Rama as

Visnu and the divinity of Sita zealously. He reorients many ‘compromising situations’ with
profuse reference to authorities and fictions of theodicy. For instance, in the encounter with
Parasurama, Madhva introduces the demon Atula. He explains the encounter of Rama with
Parasurama and the defeat of the latter skillfully. Ravana is made to carry away not the real
Sita, but a pratikrti into which life had been breathed. Rama is aware of the fact all along,
but ‘pretends’ to go through all the suffering and privation like a human husband. Madhva
relies on Bhagavata, too, in this regard.

As for the chapters relating to Mahabharata, Madhva relates the story in elaborate
detail, following the epic narrative, with critical comments wherever considered necessary.
Madhva elucidates the adhyatmic allegory of the epic with remarkable critical imagination.
According to him, the cosmic purpose of God – the deliverance of the gods and the
damnation of the asuras – is signified in the beginning of the epic. He holds that the epic
provides a final opportunity for the gods participating in it and the earlier Ramayana,
commented upon in this work, in the cosmic purpose of God, to have their own individual
accounts of sadhana balanced.

To him, Bhima is the chosen instrument of this divine purpose. He idealizes the
character of Bhima to the best advantage, over all the epic characters, next only to Krsna.
Madhva cites valuable interesting evidence of the tributes paid to Bhima by Krsna,
Yudhisthira and Duryodhana in the epic. He considers that Bhima is to be regarded as the
central hero of the epic and the chosen instrument of the Lord to carry out His purpose.

50
Accordingly, he softens incidents like Bhima drinking the blood of Dussasana, the hitting of
Duryodhana below the belt in the gadayuddha, and the falling of the body of Bhima in the
Mahaprasthanaparva. Madhva considers that the epic is a theistic document in essence, as it
is called therein. The story as such is but the outer vesture. The central theme is the
supremacy of God Visnu, Krsna who is the conductor of the cosmic drama.

The work concludes with an account of the rise of the Buddhist and Jain schools, the
rise of Mayavada in the Kali age, and the advent of Madhva himself for rehabilitation of
theism.

51
Dasa-Prakaranas
Pramanalaksana

It is a time-honoured practice in the systems of Indian thought to begin with a

statement of the number and nature of pramanas, that is, sources of correct knowledge
recognized by the given system. Following this practice, Madhva indicates in this work the
number of pramanas admitted by him, their definitions, modes of functioning and the nature
of reality apprehended by them. At the end of the work, it is said that the exposition follows
the Brahmatarka of Vyasa, which does not now exist.

As ordinarily understood, a pramana is a means or guarantor of valid knowledge. It

embraces, in its fold, truth or true knowledge, and the means of such knowledge. But to
Madhva, it has a wider denotation, the core of reality itself. True knowledge, per se, is
kevala-pramana. What leads to it is anu-pramana. Sense-perception, pratyaksa; inference,
anumana; and verbal-testimony, agama come under the category of anu-pramana. Madhva
accepts these three pramanas as fundamental. He subsumes the additional pramanas such as
upamana, arthapatti, sambhava and parisesa under inference, anupalabdhi partly under
inference and partly under sense-perception. The scheme of pramanas is thus considerably
simplified, and reduced to the barest limits of logical necessity.

On similar lines, Madhva treats the subject of fallacies. He cuts down the avayavas,
the members indispensible for an adequate statement of syllogism to the barest minimum.
Even a bare proposition implying a hetu will do, or even a proposition involving the middle
term. Similarly he treats the subject of nigrahasthanas, points for closure of a debate.

Madhva refutes the Nyaya definition of pramana, and maintains resolutely the
validity of smrti, recollection. He underscores that the very edifice of experience collapses if
the validity of our recollection is impugned. To try to establish the validity of our past
experience through inference involves needless strain, and violence to experience. He deals
with the domain of prameyas exhaustively.

Kathalaksana

This work is a metrical monograph. It is devoted to the subject of debate, and the rules
and regulations governing its conduct. This is said to follow the Brahmatarka.

Madhva’s object in writing this work must have been to train his disciples adept in the
art of debate and be able to overcome their opponents. He recognizes three types of debate –
vada, jalpa and vitanda. Vada is the purest form of debate carried solely for the
ascertainment of truth. Jalpa is a less exalted form indulged in either as a test of ability or for
victory. Vitanda is an independent kind of disputation where an honest soul is confronted
with a vicious or pervert opponent. In this type of debate, the scholar merely adopts a
destructive attitude demolishing the arguments of his adversary without, in any way,
disclosing his own view. Vitanda is the honest man’s offence against hypocrisy and
falsehood pretending to be goodness and truth. It is a safeguard against unscrupulous
argument.

52
 Upadhi Khandana

This is a short metrical tract. It criticizes the concept of upadhi, pluralizing agency
which plays a large part in the brahmajnanavada of Samkara. The brahmajnanavada
contends that the world of plurality is the outcome of ignorance playing upon the One Real.
The oneness of existence is the truth of things and all plurality is to be ascribed to this
ignorance, nescience. Madhva, in this work, attacks the very concept of the
brahmajnanavada and refutes the very idea of such nescience descending upon the Brahman
as unthinkable, unaccountable and impossible. He argues that if the Brahman is the only
thing that is, whence and where ignorance can come in. If ignorance is rendered possible
because of this upadhi, he questions how this upadhi arises and is to be conceived of. The
concept of upadhi is, according to him, the very antithesis of Monism. On the other hand, the
Dvaita system propounded by him has no such difficulty. According to it, a spiritual aspirant
is not identical with the Brahman and is fit to undertake metaphysical quest as laid down in
the Sastras.

Prapanca–Mithyatva-Anumana Khandana

The purpose of this Prakarana is to refute the concept of the unreality of the world, of
Non-dualism. Madhva contends in this Prakarana that the concept of anirvacaniya of Non-
dualism is irrational, and no inference can be based on it. He urges that criticism be based on
the points of view of both formal and inductive logic.

Mayavada Khandana

In this Prakarana, Madhva contends that Monism does not satisfactorily make out the
four-fold traditional requisites of system-building such as adhikari, visaya, etc. He questions
the central theme of Advaita, the identity of the Brahman and the jiva. This identity is riddled
with contradictions. One can raise the question if the identity, preached by Monism, is real or
fictitious. If it is real, the impossibility of ignorance, nescience affecting the Brahman,
vitiates the whole of Monistic metaphysics. Also there can be no real adhikari entitled to
philosophize or undergo spiritual discipline. For this reason, moksa cannot be the goal of
metaphysics, for, according to Advaita, everybody is free, here and now, and release is not a
state to be attained hereafter. He argues that these contradictions and pitfalls force a spiritual
aspirant to Dualism.

Tattva Samkhyana

This Prakarana enumerates the two categories Madhva recognizes. The categories are
svatantra, independent and para-trantra, dependent. This is the highest metaphysical and
ontological classification in Madhva’s system. This is whence his system derives its name
Dvaita. God, Visnu is the One (Highest) Independent Real. All else is dependent on Him,
including the goddess Lakshmi, the presiding deity of prakrti, acit. Dependence does not
mean unreality. The finite creation is always dependent on God, yet real, as He Is. He
explains that difference and disparity are found everywhere among finite selves in their
constitution and equipment. This points to a hierarchy, taratamya among gods, demons and
men. He details a cosmic scheme from the Supreme Being to inanimate creation. Of the
souls now in bondage, he makes three categories – muktiyogyas, tamoyogyas and

53
nityasamsarins. Muktiyogyas are those eligible for salvation on effort. Tamoyogyas are those
that eventually qualify themselves for eternal perdition. Nityasamsarins are those that will
always be subject to transmigration. Those who want release from bondage must learn to
look upon God as the One Being who is responsible in various ways for the preservation,
control, absorption, enlightenment, etc of the world of matter and souls.

Tattva Viveka

This Prakarana covers the same ground as Tattva Samkhyana with some additional
points regarding the logical and ontological relations between substance and attributes, etc.

Tattvoddyota

In this work, Madhva discusses and refutes the leading doctrines and fundamental
concepts of Advaita Vedanta. At the outset, he maintains that difference, bhed is the
fundamental concomitant of nature. It persists even in moksa between the Brahman and the
freed souls and among the latter. In samsaravasta, it is all the more true. It is not a
projection of mind. The facts of life or the force of logic do not warrant the concept of
anirvacaniya. Madhva denies that there is any basis for the concept of anirvacaniya in the
Nasadiya-sukta.

He stresses that the syllogisms advanced by the Monist in support of the unreality of
phenomena are full of fallacies and contradictions. He refutes in great detail the grounds of
inductive generalization. Our own consolidated experience establishes the reality of the
world. The verdict of experience can only be set aside on the strength of a more powerful
and subsequent experience. No such experience is ever had in regard to the unreality of the
world.

Madhva makes the charge of ‘crypto-Buddhism’ to Advaita stating that it bore a very
strong family resemblance to Buddhism. For all practical purposes, Advaita was but a
restatement of Buddhist ideals in Upanisadic and Vedantic phraseology. He quotes
extensively from the standard Buddhist works current in his days, and from well known
Advaitic works like the Sampeksa-Sariraka. He contends that the attribute-less Brahman of
Advaita can hardly be distinguished from the Sunya of Buddhist Nihilism. Both are beyond
thought and word, and can only be expressed through negatives. The so-called
vyavaharikasatya of the Advaitin is nothing but the samvrtisatya of the Buddhist, writ larger.
The ideal of nirvana and the goal of brahmabhava were nearly the same. In view of so much
striking affinity of prameyas, basic doctrines, Madhva asserts that Advaita is indeed
Buddhism. The Advaitin’s belief in the Veda is but a deception, as he dismisses the entire
karmakanda, and large content of the Upanisads which teach dualistic views, as ‘not-truth-
declaring’. Madhva, therefore, protests such highhanded treatment to the Veda, which is
worse than the Buddhists’ open abjuration. He winds up with the observation that the
refutation of the Buddhist idealism and nihilism in the Brahmasutras is thus tantamount to a
refutation of Advaitism itself.

There is a constructive side, too. Madhva quotes passages to show that theism is the
only philosophy accepted by the Sastras. He reinterprets passages such as tat-tvam-asi in
conformity with theism. The work concludes with a brief criticism of ekajivajnanavada.

54
 The last seven verses of the work do not belong to Madhva. They are in the nature of
tributes paid to him by the admiring witnesses of his debate with Pundarika Puri incorporated
into the body of this work, at the request of his disciples.

Visnu Tattva Nirnaya

This is the biggest Prakarana, and is the most important of Madhva’s Dasa-
Prakaranas. It is an exhaustive refutation of Advaita, a brilliant criticism of Advaitic
interpretation of Srutis, and an equally impressive exposition of their interpretation on new
lines and masterly vindication of the concept of Difference. It has three chapters,
paricchedas. The central thesis of this work is that the Brahman, Narayana is the highest
subject-matter of the Vedasastra.

Madhva discusses the place and importance of sabda among pramanas, and argues a
strong case for the infallibility, apauruseyatva of the Vedas. He is the only Vedantin, after
the Mimamsakas, to have given this question serious attention. The Veda is self-valid and
cannot be ascribed to any known author, human or divine. The eternity of the Veda rests on
the eternity of sabda. Madhva establishes convincingly that no system of philosophy can be
without some kind of apauruseya-vakya for its ultimate validity. Even the Buddhists and the
Carvakas are forced to admit some kind of sabda-pramana, which is incapable of being
ascribed to any author.

Madhva argues that explaining the ineradicable difference between God and man is
the purport of the Sastras. This difference is a corollary of the supremacy of the Brahman.
He repudiates the Advaitic view that all the scriptural texts which speak of ‘difference’ are to
be looked upon as being merely anuvadak, repetitive in spirit. Our knowledge of the
existence of God is derived solely from scripture. Such being the case, the scripture will not
cut its ground under its own feet. The monistic texts are against the consolidated experience
of humanity, and the inference based on it, in regard to non-difference between God and jiva.
Though, agama, as a rule, has precedence over other means of proof, it cannot be considered
valid when it goes against its very prop and support. He concludes that scriptural texts
which, on a superficial view, favour an identity of the Brahman and the jiva are shown, on
closer scrutiny, to emphasize the unutterable majesty of the Brahman, and the complete
metaphysical dependence of all else on It.

Madhva makes a brilliant analysis of the texts such as tat-tvam-asi and

vacarambhana. He lays bare the defects in their Advaitic interpretation. He raises new
points not earlier noticed, which deserve careful attention. He argues that an implicit and
ineradicable Dualism underlies all the well-known Upanisadic texts quoted by him.

Several scriptural texts teach the reality of the world of difference. An Advaitin
admits this reality, but considers that it is of a lower order. Madhva quotes passages to show
that the ‘difference’ persists even in moksa. Individual consciousness is inalienable and
indestructible in release.

In this work, Madhva develops the best classical exposition of the concept of Bheda,
Difference. A pluralistic universe is grounded on the reality of difference. The concept of
‘difference’ is fundamental to all reality of the world. It is the foundation on which his
Theistic Realism rests. Madhva argues that ‘difference’ is not cognized by itself, but only in
relation to its terms either as qualifying them or being qualified by them. In any case, unless

55
the terms are previously grasped, their difference from each other cannot be grasped. This
difference may be either attributive or is bound up with the cognition of the correlate and the
counter-correlate. But, then, the cognition of the terms is dependent on that of the difference
referred to. There is, thus, mutual interdependence in any attempt to define the concept of
Difference. Madhva states that ‘difference’ is not an attribute of both correlates, but only of
one of them, signalized by the other. This difference is of the nature of the object itself. To
know an object is to know its difference from another. Madhva states that the ‘thing in itself’
may be perceived independently, but its difference from another may yet be cognizable only
mediately through the relata. There is nothing illogical in this approach.

A question arises that if the ‘thing’ and its difference are one and the same, they must
always be cognized together. Madhva explains, in terms of the concept of visesa, that an
object can be perceived without involving a ‘specific perception’ of its difference from
another. Difference is only savisesabhinna from its dharmi. When an object is cognized, its
difference from other things is also cognized in a ‘general way and for the most part’.
Otherwise, one may even mistake one’s own self for any one of the numerous objects around
him. None ever commits such error. It, therefore, follows that difference is cognized
simultaneously with perception of the object. If it were so, a question arises as to why doubts
and imperfect cognitions arise, and whether such imperfect cognitions can be part and parcel
of the ‘thing in itself’. Madhva answers this issue by saying that ‘difference’ (doubt or
imperfect cognition) is only one in a given thing. The given thing has innumerable shades
such as that of being the counter correlate of X, Y or Z. Where, in a particular case, this
‘particular shade’ of difference is missed with reference to a particular or counter correlate,
on account of such factors as resemblance, doubts arise. The particular doubt, however, does
not mean that ‘difference’ in general has not been grasped at all.

It is contended that if ‘difference’ were of the nature of the object, it would, in effect,
abolish its own self, or the object. Or, it may mean that ‘difference’ is synonymous with the
object itself. Madhva develops the concept of Dharmisvarupa, the colourful identity between
the objects and ‘difference’, to counter the contention. The ‘identity’, abheda prevents the
possibility of such mutual interdependence in perception. The visesa guarantees the
existence and reality of both the object and the difference. Visesa is just the representative of
‘difference’, not difference by itself. It stands to reason that visesa be recognized in all
objects commonly regarded as undifferentiated.

Madhva enunciates the doctrine that ‘Difference is dharmisvarupa’, part of the ‘thing
in itself’. It is perceived simultaneously with the perception of an object, a relation or a
concept. In one and the same act of perception, the object and its individuality, which is the
same as its difference from all else, are both perceived in a flash as it were. If it were not so,
the question may have to be answered why and where that individuality had been lurking, and
how it comes to be apprehended later. Madhva says that, because of this flash-like
simultaneity of apprehension, there is hardly anytime, at the moment, to frame linguistic
expression for the adequate expression of experience of individuality. When we know a
thing, we know it as distinct from everything else, in a general way. Closer thought and
ratiocination reveal further items of difference, light and shade. Otherwise, one may expect
to mistake the perceiving self to be something other than itself.

It makes no difference to the question of overlapping whether the Brahman is

regarded as expressible by words or as merely suggestible. For, in any case of elimination,
there is no point in resorting to more than one elimination, if the object thus marked off from

56
its opposite attributes does not gain or assume a new aspect or additional significance, every
time a fresh elimination is sought to be brought about. This argument of Madhva is quite
sound, and hard to rebut.

Further, when difference is presented to cognition, it cannot be denied altogether on

the ground of interdependence. Interdependence, even if it is admitted, cannot annul the
reality of things so inter-depending. One has to explain the process of perception of
difference. But failure or inability to do so cannot mean that the thing itself is unreal. There
is, of course, no cause for inter-dependence, if difference is recognized as dharmisvarupi, but
yet svavisesabhinna from it.

Madhva denies that there is any proof for the assumption that adhyasa is double-
edged. The atman has never been mistaken for the not-self, even in the wildest of our
adhyasas. Illusions are as impossible without the reality of the prototype, aropya as without
that of an adhistana. On all occasions of normally constituted perceptions, the subject and
the object are grasped distinctly. Madhva concludes the first chapter of the work with a
criticism of ekajiva and bahujiva-jnana vadas.

In the next two chapters, Madhva deals with the concept of Godhead. The second
chapter emphasizes the lordship of Visnu over ksara (souls) and aksara beings. In the third
chapter, God is said to be absolutely free from all taint and imperfections. He is full of an
infinite number of infinite attributes. Madhva explains the limitations to divinity seen in the
avatars, on the basis of certain widely accepted theological and Puranic fictions, and
conventions of theodicy.

The question of the exact relation between the personality of God and His moral and
metaphysical attributes has always been a challenge to Theists the world over. It is an
intriguing problem of philosophy, too. Madhva is one that has successfully tackled the
problem of the Divine Personality, its nature and constitution. God, in theism, is unlimited
by time, space and attributes. He is One, but unlimited are His attributes. The question arises
as to how far God is homogeneous in constitution. Is God different from His attributes? If
not, what is the basis of the mutual distinction among His various attributes? If there is no
such distinction, how is the multiplicity of the attributes to be established? By what law of
harmony are these attributes equally poised and manifested at different types? How does God
manage to retain His unity amidst infinite attributes? Madhva answers all these questions, in
his own way, with the help of his peculiar theory of visesas developed in this work.

For Madhva, visesa is a distinct thought-category, ontological principle that is entirely

self-sufficient and wholly self-determined and self-determining. It comes in handy in many
metaphysical exigencies. It is what bridges the gulf between substance, kriya and attributes,
kriyavat. It connects God with His infinite attributes, and the attributes mutually. But it is
not different from the nature of God Himself, or distinct from His personality. It is a
representative of difference, bhedpratinidhi, but not bhed itself. In short, it is an intrinsic
nuance. It acts as an internal relation capable of working both ways. It is capable of
connecting substance and attributes without being external to either. There is no distinction
between God and His attributes, activity and will. There is absolute identity among the
attributes themselves. Thus, according to Madhva, there is no semblance of differentiation,
no element of heterogeneity in the Deity. Whoever sets up barriers between God and His
attributes is sure to face the horrors of hell-fire. This doctrine of Madhva is known as
savisesabheda or acintyabheda.

57
 Madhva states that it is impossible to do justice to such texts as satyam, jnanam,
anantam, brahma, etc without the help of the said visesas. It is, in short, a
sarvatantrasiddhanta. He cites passages from Brahmatarka, Paramopanisad (Pancaratrika)
elucidating visesas. Apart from the authorities quoted, the concept of visesa itself ranks
among the most important contributions of Madhva to Indian philosophic thought.

Karma Nirnaya

The work Karma Nirnaya is only next to Visnu Tattva Nirnaya in its extent. This
demonstrates the mastery of Madhva in the ritualistic portions of the Vedas and their
exegesis. It is evidently the last of Madhva’s works. The object of the work is to work out
and illustrate the attunement of the karmakanda with the Brahman. Therefore, it deals with
the higher interpretation of certain abstruse and complicated sacrificial hymns such as the
Mahanamni verses to be recited in connection with the Prstha Stotra of the Naiskevalya
Sastra. This Sastra contains some verses of Aitareya Brahmana and some Rks used in the
Sodasa Sastra, etc.

Madhva shows himself fully conversant with the genius of the Vedic language and its
idiom. His interpretations have a ring of confidence and originality. He insists on
interpreting the whole of the scripture including the karmakanda directly, as a glorification of
the Supreme Being.

As a preliminary to such higher interpretation, Madhva vigorously attacks the theory

of nirguna Brahman in the opening section of the work. He cites various passages ascribing
attributes to the Brahman. There is good reason to suppose that an intelligent creator like the
Brahman must indeed be saguna, as stated in Bhagavata. The denial of attributes to the
Brahman in some passages of the scripture must be interpreted in terms of purely prkritic
attributes.

He refutes the concept of nirvisesa dialectically. According to him, the predication of

nirvisesatva involves a contradiction. It cannot also be a negative elimination. The Veda, by
its very nature, stands for the achievement of happiness eternal, by man. Such eternal
happiness is obviously and admittedly beyond the power of karma. He contends that karma
can never be regarded as the end of the scripture. Karma, rituals have to be performed in a
spirit of devotion, discrimination and detachment. He concludes the work with an indication
of texts to support his contentions.

58
Upanisad Bhashyas
General

Madhva interprets the Upanisads, earlier commented by Samkara and others from the
point of view of Monism, in conformity with the requirements of genuine theism. He draws
attention to the full measure of support that the Upanisads give to theistic religion. He
reinterprets some texts consistent with their underlining theism. He makes considerable use
of linguistic analysis, grammatical and etymological sanctions, and a large body of
interpretative literature. He resorts to logical argumentation, too.

The merit of his line of interpretation of the Upanisads lies in the foundations of his
realistic metaphysics, which go to the depths of the intuitional experiences of the saksi, and
the consequent logico-philosophical necessity for a proper reconciliation of Upanisadic
monism with findings of such upajivya-pramana. It also lies in the abiding values of his
comprehensive metaphysical ideology of svatantra, which is indeed the apex of his thought.
He attaches no value to literalism or mere speculative flights of philosophical imagination
and its glamour.

Isavasya Upanisad Bhashya

Madhva interprets this Upanisad as a valuable document of theism. The very first
verse conceives of the twin-principles of theism – the immanence and the transcendence of
the Deity. The Upanisad squarely affirms the reality of creation and records the doctrine of
disinterested performance of one’s svadharma. It foreshadows the need for divine grace in
realizing the highest truth.

Madhva’s commentary of this Upanisad is original in many respects. He explains sa

paryagat as referring to the human soul placing itself under the protection of the Supreme
and thereby calling off all misery, in support of the Dvaita system. There is a strong fervour
behind his bold and interesting explanation: ‘Those who are content to revel in ignorance go
to perdition. Into greater hell do they sink that rest content in their own knowledge, without
taking the trouble to denounce false teaching and propagate the true.’ The aggressive
attitude that characterizes Madhva commentators is probably due to this interpretation. He
explains aham and asmi in this Upanisad as the two secret, esoteric names of God. He
construes: ‘That Supreme Being (Asau) which indwells Asu (the Chief Prana) is I AM’.

Kena or Talavakara Upanisad Bhashya

This Upanisad seeks to demonstrate the supremacy of the Brahman over all presiding
deities of phenomenal forces of Nature as well as microcosm. It relates an interesting parable
of the gods and the Yaksa. The sovereignty of God has two aspects – adhidaiva, celestial and
adhyatma, physical. The so-called ‘spiritual agnosticism’ of this Upanisad is nothing more
than a plea for the spirit of prayerful devotion to God that is to spring from inner humility of
self. While it remains true that no human being can ever know God in all His fullness and
glory, the Upanisad does not negative the possibility of knowing Him at all, each one
according to one’s capacity. Madhva comments, ‘this jiva, who is near to the body, is not that
Supreme Self’. This is in line with his contention that ‘Kena wants to fight against the
doctrine of the identity of the world-soul and the individual soul’.

59
 Katha Upanisad Bhashya

According to Madhva, the theme of this Upanisad is whether the sovereignty of God
over His creatures is limited upto the stage of release, or it continues beyond it. Madhva, as a
mystic philosopher, emphasizes that the sovereignty of God extends beyond release. Further,
he attributes the activities of the jiva in the waking and dream planes, too, to God. The idea
that the human soul is dependent at all stages and states of its existence on the guidance and
control of a Higher Power runs through every line and chapter of the Upanisad. The
Upanisad makes a strong plea for the subordination of the individual to such Power. The
gods, no less than the forces of Nature, obey the commands of God. The Upanisad makes the
difference between God and the soul distinct. It also formulates the doctrine of Grace
stressed by Madhva – ‘God must choose the devotee before the latter can hope to attain Him’.

Mundaka Upanisad Bhashya

This work is made up of quotations from authoritative sources. In this work, Madhva
repudiates the ‘invidious distinction’ between the para (higher) and the apara (lower) vidyas
in the sense in which these terms are interpreted by Samkara. Madhva opines that the
distinction between the four Vedas and that by which the Imperishable is known is one of
outlook, not of status or parts. It is a matter of intellectual approach rather than one of
material classification. He staunchly believes in the supreme authority of the entire Sastra as
a whole to reveal the Supreme. He does not, therefore, subscribe to the view that the pre-
Upanisadic literature is apara-vidya. He gives a new orientation to the concept of para and
apara vidya by which the four Vedas and their connected literature will be designated as para
and apara according as they are correlated or not correlated to the Supreme Being. He bases
this interpretation on a text from the Parama Samhita of the Pancaratra. In the light of this
interpretation, the conflict between ritualism and the path of knowledge, which this Upanisad
is stated to focus, gets synthesized by shifting emphasis, as explained in his Gita Bhashya.

This Upanisad affirms ‘Realism’, both physical and psychical. Madhva, the Realist,
states that all good acts performed by an enlightened soul from the moment of his realization,
aparoksa of God-vision, are not destroyed, but credited, so to say, to his account in release.
As karma is not destroyed in release, the souls together with their jnanottara-karma are
bound up in the Lord with their different potentialities intact.

Prasna Upanisad Bhashya

This Upanisad, in four sections, is made up of the answers to the six questions put to
sage Pippalada. The first section refers to the twin-principles of rayi and prana to be the
sources of creation. Madhva equates these two with Vayu and Bharati of his theosophy. He
explains that this divine couple presides over the various principles of life in different
capacities, and carries on the work of creation. The next two sections plead for the
supremacy of prana over the psychic and the physical world. Madhva’s theology gives
unique place to prana, calling it prana-vidya.

The fourth section of the Upanisad makes an analysis of dreams, ascribing the endless
activity thereof to the powers of the individual. But Madhva ascribes the endless activity of
dreams to the Supreme Being. The Upanisad states that the knower loses himself in the
infinite light of the Deity, like rivers into the ocean. The emphasis is on the annihilation of
name and form of the individual. But Madhva interprets it stating that the names and forms

60
are not destroyed, but only differ from one another, like after the rivers mingling into the sea,
in a hundred ways. On the analogy of the setting sun, he argues that the dissolution of the
rivers into the sea can only legitimately imply their invisibility to the naked eye thereafter.
He strives to interpret the Upanisad in the light of his Dvaita siddhanta.

Mandukya Upanisad Bhashya

This work is the most theistic contribution of Madhva. To the proper understanding
of the Upanisad, Madhva identifies the four forms of the intuiting self with the four forms of
the Deity presiding over the four stages of our psycho-physical and trans-mundane existence.
The four stages are waking, jagrat; dream, svapna; deep sleep, susupti; and moksa, turiya.
The identification of the four stages to the four forms of the Atman by Samkara and other
scholars is a narrow interpretation, according to Madhva, and does not stand scrutiny in the
context of the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad, where the taijasa and prajna are sharply
distinguished from the individual purusa.

Madhva takes pains to repudiate the monistic implications of such terms as Advaita,
prapancopasana, avyavahara in the Upanisad. He establishes that the Upanisad, as dealing
with the Adhyatma, in the sense of the immanent Supreme Being, is the true active principle
behind all our psycho-physical existence and activities. This line of thought, Madhva argues,
is the real bottom-line of this and other Upanisads.

The Mandukya Upanisad is divided into four short khandas. The text, as it has come
down to us, is in 29 slokas (verses). This text finds place, as such, in Prakarana I of Advaita-
Vedanta of Gaudapada, Samkara’s paramaguru. Madhva comments on these 29 slokas
considering them as constituing the Mandukya Upanisad.

Madhva considers that slokas 7 to 9 afford material for a theistic reconstruction.

After review of various theories of creation, theistic and anti-theistic, he says that the Deity
cannot be supposed to engage in world creation out of any desire to achieve any unfulfilled
desire. Creation is a spontaneous activity, just a welling up of the divine ecstasy. It is
difficult to reconcile such an exalted idea with a purely a-cosmic (monistic) idea which treats
the universe as a huge fancy of beginning-less ignorance. He does not agree to the
interpretation of the term deva as the individual soul.

Similarly, he argues that slokas 17 and 18 are to be interpreted in the same realistic
spirit. On a casual reading, they may seem to be a wholesale repudiation of all realism. But a
careful attention to the wording and drift of the argument posed by the slokas tends to the
dualistic thought. He argues that these slokas are cast in syllogistic form of a
viparyayaparyayavasana argument. His argument runs thus: ‘The world, were it a projection
of the mind, would disappear sometime; it does not so disappear, therefore, it is not a
projection of the mind (but a reality).’ The point is that the Advaitin cannot afford to deny
that there is any disappearance of phenomena, because it is mithya. Disappearance, nivrtti is
the necessary presupposition of mithyatva. Hence, the acceptance of the
viparyayaparyavasana, ‘na nivartate’ necessarily leads to the conclusion that the world is not
a mental projection, but a reality.

He points out that there is no logical concomitance between existence, vidyamanatva

and negation, nivrtti. The term vidyeta in the text is to be taken in the sense of utpadyeta,
produced. He thus sees in the proposition here an argument for the beginning-less reality,

61
anadisatyatva of the universe. He draws attention to the use of the term in the text meaning
‘selective genitive’ which implies the existence of other reals, sa dvitiyatva. If the turya
alone were meant to be real and all other bhavas unreal, the use of the words nirdharana,
sasti (selective, genitive) would be out of place. He explains the term mayamatram in the text
as ‘created by God’s will and sustained by it’. The term matram is made up of two roots,
maa meaning to measure and tra meaning to protect. Similarly, he explains the reference to
the Supreme in the text from the standpoint of his Svatantra-Advitiya- Brahmavada.

Aitareya Upanisad Bhashya

The Aitareya Upanisad is generally restricted to Aitareya Aranyaka I. The second and
the third parts of the Aranyaka (II and III) are together termed Mahaitareya Upanisad. The
third Aranyaka as such is known as Samita Upanisad. Madhva’s Bhashya is commentary on
all the three Aitareya Aranyaka parts, constituting Aitareya Upanisad.

When literally interpreted, much of the Upanisad appears to be unintelligible,

grotesque and bizarre. But Madhva interprets it in a mystic and esoteric way. His
interpretation of the text in terms of the Highest Brahman and Its worship and meditation,
through all Its immanent aspects is unique and extraordinary. The intimate connection of this
Upanisad with the Rigveda Samhita, in which mysticism and symbolism are very significant,
lends credence to Madhva’s line of explanation. There is no doubt that the general trend of
Madhva’s commentary on Part I of the Aranyaka favours some kind of an allegorical
explanation of sacrifice. The text suggests that seekers acquire concentration of thought by
meditating on the accessories of sacrifice. The second part of the Aranyaka enlarges on the
doctrine of the Atman. The third part of the Aranyaka takes up the theories of world
combination and permutation, with the mystic meaning of various forms of the Samhita text,
its vowels, consonants, etc.

Madhva interprets the entire Upanisad in a mystic and ‘Vaisnavite sense’. The hymn,
Utkha is identified with the Brahman. The five-fold hymn is explained as the five forms of
Visnu, Narayana, Samkarsa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. The meditation on the Samhita text
and its constituent parts is similarly dealt with. Madhva is alive to the difficulties of such
interpretations which involve ‘loose and unscientific etymologizing’. The interpretations are
rather ‘weak, farfetched’. It may be that the general tone and wording of the Aranyaka is in
favour of mystic interpretation of karma, but there can be no logical connection with Visnu.
The supremacy of prana as the central theme of the Veda is obvious, and also the equation of
the prana with the Brahman. But Madhva’s equation of prana with Visnu in the
interpretation does not appeal to reason.

Madhva selects four passages from the Aranyaka as representing its quintessence and
from which he draws his doctrine of sarva-sabda-samanvaya in the Brahman, Visnu. This
doctrine is the master-key to his interpretation. He records that ‘not only the names of the
gods and rishis in the Veda, but even the very music of the spheres, the sounds of the ocean,
the thunder of the clouds, and noise of the falling trees voice the majesty of God’. These are
lofty sentiments of a devout theist to which any mystic may rise in moments of divine
ecstasy. For Madhva, Visnu stands only for the Highest Being and hence is his equation of
the Brahman with Visnu.

Madhva discusses in this Bhashya the points at issue between Dualism and Monism.
He refutes the doctrine of identity between jiva and the Brahman in the dialogue between

62
Indra and Visvamitra. Similarly he opposes the concept of the attribute-less Brahman, and
seeks to establish in moksa, gradation and difference of various kinds, taratamya. He argues
that the terms aham and asmi are used as secret names of God, explaining the entire passage
as ‘That which is called Aham is in the Asu (Chief Breath) and that which is in the Asu is
Aham’, that is, ‘Aheya’. He also explains that the term atma, preceding the text, is used in the
sense of inner ruler or guiding principle, and not in the context of identity of the jiva and the
Brahman.

Taittiriya Upanisad Bhashya

Madhva adopts a mystic line of interpretation in this work. At the outset, in siksavalli,
he refers to meditation on the Brahman in the six constitutive elements of letter, accent,
quality, effort, modulation and combination. The Supreme, Visnu presides with His five
forms over the five spheres of loka, jyotisa, vidya, praja and atma. The same Lord rules over
the five sheaths and indwells them. He is, therefore, designated by the epithets annamaya,
pranamaya, manomaya, etc. Madhva regards all the five sheath-forms as the Brahman.
Madhva’s view is that all the forms of the Brahman are meant to be grasped as immanent in
the different kosas and, therefore, designated by those very names for purposes of meditation.
He thus helps the mystic and esoteric correlation of the working of the psychophysical world
with the immanent activity of the Brahman. For Madhva, the real teaching of this Upanisad is
that, in all the five states, it is the Brahman, nothing but the Brahman, clothed in esoteric
phraseology, as the antaryami aspect. This interpretation places the teaching of this Upanisad
in a new and edifying perspective, consistent with the principle of samanvaya of Vedantic
texts in the Brahman.

According to Madhva, the crucial point in the last valli (sloka) is gradation of bliss in
moksa, anandataratamya. He maintains that the gradation perceived here has reference to
the highest state of release itself.

Brhadaranyaka Upanisad Bhashya

This is the biggest of Madhva’s Upanisad Bhashyas. He gives, as usual, an esoteric

and theological explanation of the ritual sections of the Upanisad. He explains the
‘Asvamedha Brahmana’ in terms of the Brahman, and its meditation through nature
symbolism.

Madhva refutes in detail the contents of monistic texts such as vacarambhanam. He

discusses in full the thesis of siddhanthe-vyutpattih which establishes that the mechanism of
speech has reference to an established order of reality. He also establishes the self-validity of
the agamas, the characteristics of the three pramanas, the concept of visesas, etc. He refers
to the example of the drum and the lute to emphasize the substantial dependence of
everything on God. He refers to passages in the Upanisad that state that the human souls are
subject to misery and have to look up to God, who is free from arti, imperfection for grace
and redemption. The presence of evil and imperfection in the world is, for Madhva, proof of
existence of omnipotent God.

At the end of this Bhashya, as at the end of ten other works, he claims to be an avatar
of Vayu.

63
 Chandogya Upanisad Bhashya

This work is a detailed exposition of the Dvaita system, and launches a severe attack
on the Monistic system. The opening sections of this Upanisad extol the cult of mukhya-
prana, chief-breath. In Madhva’s theology, it occupies a position similar to that of Christ in
Christianity. Mukhya-prana is the ‘Son of God’, and is the highest medium through which the
Udgitha, identified with Visnu as the Brahman, is to be worshipped, for He alone, among the
gods, is free from sin, and finally leads the souls to moksa.

In this work, Madhva puts on the Monist the onus of proving the world to be false.
He quotes from the Sruti extensively. He refers to the laudations of minor gods to Visnu as
their Inner Ruler. His ‘partiality’ to Visnu is very consistent, and carries out his monotheistic
attunement of the Upanisads. He refers to the term tajjalan in this Upanisad to give
Vaisnavism a footing therein. He splits it into tat and jalan, jalan meaning the ‘being’ that
breathes in the primeval waters. This signifies Visnu breathing in the primeval waters.

His interpretation of the sixth chapter of the Upanisad is quite significant. He states
that the Advaitic interpretation of this chapter that knowledge of the One, Real produces the
knowledge of ‘all’ is fallacious. For him, the Advaitin is least justified in speaking of ‘the
unknown becoming known; the unheard becoming heard’. He contends that the words
actually used justify more his thesis than the interpretation of Samkara. His interpretation is
that knowledge of the Brahman is the end and aim of all kinds of secular and religious
learning. Without such knowledge of the Supreme Being, even the most comprehensive
secular knowledge is futile. He stresses the primacy of the knowledge of God over every
other kind of knowledge. That, when acquired, confers the benefit of all else that is known,
or worth-knowing. This becomes possible by effecting a proper correlation between secular
knowledge and divine insight through the subsidiary and dependent character of all worldly
knowledge. To know the Brahman as sarvasattapratitipravrttinimittam is to have derived the
true benefit of knowing all that is worth-knowing in the world.

The idea is that the knowledge of the ‘greater’ includes that of the ‘less’. By means of
a similarity of form, the knowledge of the primary may make the knowledge of the secondary
as good as known. Of God and the world, both being reals, the knowledge of God, the
creator as pradhana, is sufficient to give knowledge of the world as created and sustained by
Him, as depending on Him. Madhva argues that the knowledge of the father enables one to
know the offspring by sight in virtue of similarity of features. He thus attempts in various
ways to bring out the thesis of the pre-eminence of divine knowledge over empirical
knowledge, as the teaching of the Upanisad.

As for the mahavakya tat tvam asi of this Upanisad, Madhva is the first Indian
philosopher, and critic of Samkara’s interpretations of this mahavakya, drawing attention to
the inappropriateness of the illustrations used to the thesis of ‘identity’. Monism argues that,
like rivers joining the sea, totally losing themselves, the jivas return to their original abode in
God after vicissitudes on earth. Madhva argues that, to all appearances, the rivers may get
mixed up with the sea and be lost. But they are there, all the same. Of course, there is no
realization on the part of the rivers of their difference from the sea; but neither is there any
realization on their part, of any identity with it. He dwells on the narration of Uddalaka in the
Upanisad that the Brahman is the source, shelter and support of all creatures, a description
which obviously suggests the dependence of all finite existence on an Unseen Power. He
reorients the interpretation of the text in terms of the dependence of all finite reality on the

64
One Supreme, an identity based on mystic perception of metaphysical dependence of all
finite reality on the Brahman.

As for the text ekam eva advitiyam of the Upanisad, Madhva interprets advitiyam as
without a peer or a superior. The denial of a ‘second’ has reference only to an equal or a
rival, rather than to inferior reality. Sruti has several texts to confirm this line of
interpretation. The last chapter of the Upanisad takes the view of moksa as a state of active
enjoyment of bliss for the released souls. Madhva considers that the Upanisad vindicates the
Dvaita system.

65
Rigveda Bhashya
Madhva views the Rigveda (Sakala sakha), and for that matter, the whole Veda, as an
essentially theosophical document.

He maintains the doctrine of three-fold interpretation of Veda. The Supreme Being is

its highest subject matter. All scripture, primarily and in the first place, sings the glory of the
Supreme. He opposes the popular view that the Veda only sings the praises of a plurality of
gods, devas and are mostly made up of hymns to be addressed to them on the occasion of
numerous sacrifices. While admitting that they do serve this purpose, he contends that they
have a higher aim, to convey the knowledge of the One Supreme Being. This latter aim is the
highest and the most fundamental object of the Veda without exception or distinction. The
distinction of karma and jnana kandas is, thus, to a large extent, superficial and misleading.
Even the karma-kanda is capable of being interpreted in terms of the highest wisdom of the
Brahman, by the seeker. According to him, the popular distinction is one of convenience, and
adopted for practical and schematic reasons. As all persons are not equally endowed with the
highest spiritual light and capacity to rise to the highest sense of the scripture, the distinction
of karma and jnana kandas has a place in the scheme of things in the ordinary working
hypothesis. But it is, in truth, only a means to an end. True wisdom can be attained only
when one rises to the level of direct attunement of the entire sacred literature with the
Supreme Being, after purifying oneself by going through the disciplinary schemes laid down
in the karma-kanda and discharging one’s obligations, social and religious, which it entails
on him, in a spirit of prayer, devotion and dedication to the Supreme. According to Madhva,
this is the theosophical teaching of the Rigveda and all the other Vedas.

At the outset of this work, Madhva makes interesting remarks on the evolution of the
present text of the Vedas, the scheme of risis, deities and the metres of the hymns. He
presupposes three redactions of the Samhita texts – the first stage of Mulaveda when the
hymns were in a floating stage, the second stage of Upavedas or Protovedas when the floating
materials came to be arranged into three groups, namely, the proto-Rk, the proto-Yajus and
the proto-Saman, and the third stage of separating the texts into four groups of Samhitas
representing the present texts, by Vyasa. Besides the three stages of Vedic redaction,
Madhva also considers that some passages had actually been displaced from their original
contexts at different stages of redaction, while a few had been lost. In this work, he cites
examples of both kinds.

Madhva works out the details of his three-fold interpretation of the Rigveda in the
opening section of this work. He observes that the Rks as lauding particular forms of the
Supreme like Agni, Mitra are easily susceptible to higher attunement with the One, than other
parts of the Vedic literature like the Brahmanas. He chooses some forty suktas of the first
mandala to support his thesis.

Madhva has an elaborate scheme of risis, devatas, etc for the hymns, peculiar to
himself. Visnu is the chief and the highest of all the risis. It is He that reveals the Veda to
Brahma at the beginning of creation, as stated in the Svetasvatara Upanisad. Excluding
Visnu, there are four other grades of risis – primary, secondary, tertiary and the fourth grade.
Brahma is the primary Seer of the whole Veda. Then, second, come Garuda and Sesa who
are the Seers of the Veda and the Pancaratras. Among the tertiary risis, Indra is the Seer of
Rks, Surya of Yajus, Soma of Saman and Agni of Atharvan. In the fourth grade are the

66
individual Seers of various Rks and suktas whose names are given in the Anukramanika and
other works. Some kind of unseen merit attaches to knowledge of the first three grades of
Seers, and tangible results to the last. The ‘wives’ of the Seers take rank in the order of their
husbands. They preside over some metres.

Similar is the case of devatas of hymns. Next to the Supreme Being, Sri is the devata
(subject) of all those hymns except those specially applying to Visnu. The wives of gods,
down to Indra, follow suit. Madhva gives numerous other details of like description quoting
from works which are now not extant.

Madhva states that salvation can be obtained only by realizing the supremacy of the
Brahman, Visnu and His lordship over the gods, and by attuning the entire scripture to Him.
The Rigveda upholds Visnu, according to him, among the adidaiva-tattvas, as the Supreme
Being that is free from all taint and imperfections. The other devatas like Brahma, Indra, etc
are subject to various imperfections such as duhkhaprapti. Rudra has similar defects. Even
the goddess Lakshmi is stated as inferior in many respects, while the other gods like Brahma,
Rudra, Indra, Marut are stated as being under the control of Lakshmi. He cites passages from
the Suparna and Bahvrca Srutis establishing a hierarchy of the gods. The Tura-Sruti makes
Vayu superior to Indra, Soma, Agni, Surya, etc. The Rigveda Samhita vouches for the
supremacy of Visnu over Indra. There is thus sufficient evidence in the Veda, says Madhva,
for the hierarchy of gods and for the suzerainty of Visnu over all the gods of the Vedic
pantheon. The entire scripture refers to Visnu, and not to the individual gods who do not
exist during pralaya. He argues that, at least to safeguard the eternal validity of the Sruti,
which cannot be done in the absence of Bhashya, during the time of avantarapralaya, the
higher attunement of scripture in the Brahman must be recognized. Otherwise, the Vedas
would be bereft of vacyartha during pralaya, and thus lose their title to eternal validity.

It is for this reason also that Madhva emphasizes the scheme of three-fold
interpretation of scripture from the historical, the mystic and the transcendental points of
view. The historical interpretation is generally in line with that of Sayana and other Vedic
commentators. The mystic interpretation is that by which a hymn or text in praise of a
particular deity is made to refer to the particular form of the Brahman, Visnu presiding over
the act for which the deity is known, and over the deity also in the same name. In this case,
the names and epithets find their fullest etymological sense only as applied to the antaryamin.
Madhva terms the mystic interpretation as one of ‘yoga’ or ‘mahayoga’ while the historical
one is the ‘rudhartha’. The mystic one is grounded on the doctrine of sarvasabdasamanvaya
in the Brahman. The third line of Vedic interpretation is the adhyatmic, pertaining to the
metaphysical or philosophical relation between the jiva and the Brahman, and centres round
it. Jayatirtha elucidates the three lines of interpretation in his learned commentary on the Rg
Bhasya, based on grammatical and philological sanctions, thus: ‘In the outward sacrifice, Fire
is the first to be worshipped. The Supreme Being immanent in Fire is next lauded under the
same name of Agni (in its yaugika or mahayoga sense). Lastly, in the realm of the inward
sacrifice of knowledge (atmajnana), the Supreme is praised as the author (hotr) of the right
kind of rapprochement between the senses and the external environment, or as the immanent
guide that controls (agragatvat agranitvat) the consuming fire of external reality by the flame
of intellect’.

Madhva’s Bhashya mainly provides the details of the mystic line of interpretation and
rarely of the other two. He passes over the historical explanation as being obvious. He
elaborates with great skill here and there the adhyatmic interpretation such as the Indra-Vrttra

67
episode. According to him, Vrttra represents the concentrated essence of ajnana or false
teaching of maya, figuratively described as a cloud, a serpent (ahi) or a ‘mountain’ (adri).
Indra is the enlightened soul or Supreme Lord who slays this demon of ignorance with his
weapon of vajra or enlightenment, samyajnana. Ignorance falls vanquished, sundered of its
hands and feet, that is to say, put out of action, by reason and revelation.

Madhva’s approach in this work is designed for the satisfaction of the spiritual and
mystic thought-needs of humanity. While it accommodates the purely historical explanations
of Sayana and the modern scholars, it goes far beyond them in certain directions. Madhva
does not expressly criticize the interpretations of earlier Vedic commentators though he
differs from many of them, even in the interpretation of hymns. The three-fold interpretation
of Vedic texts elaborated by Madhva has its parallel in the western tradition of scriptural
interpretation. It is Origen who formulated the three-fold sense of scripture – the literal,
moral and mystical. This division corresponds to Plato’s tripartite division of man into body,
mind and spirit or soul.

Madhva’s stand on the Rigveda has been vindicated by modern scholars. The
scholar-mystic Sri Aurobindo, in his ‘The Secret of the Veda’ expounds the mystic thought of
the Vedic hymns clothed in symbolic terminology. Prof. Maryla Falk writes that ‘in a large
group of hymns, a specific technical terminology and phraseology relating to a set of psycho-
physiological and functional hypostases which constitutes the basic data of the earliest Yoga
theory’ is elaborated. An orthodox Visistadvaita scholar D.T.Tatacharya states thus: ‘The
Rigveda has the idea of the Brahman underlying it. If we apply, and I don’t know why we
should not apply, to the Rks and hymns of this Veda the principles of Upanisads, as meaning
the Brahman, we cannot escape the conclusion that this Veda is as much concerned with the
Brahman as Upanisads’. The Rigveda Samhita, with a new commentary, published by the
Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry pays handsome tributes to Madhva and his commentators
for their pioneering work in bringing to light the mystic and symbolic meanings of Rigvedic
hymns.

68
Stotras and Works on Worship and Rituals
Madhva composed a few Stotras and other works of miscellaneous character dealing
with religious worship, rituals, etc. These works, stated hereunder, reflect his deep religious
spirit and devotional fervour.

Yamaka Bharata

This is a short Yamaka-kavya in 81 verses, in different metres, dealing with the

exploits of Krsna and his help to the Pandavas. He handles a variety of metres skillfully in the
use of yamakas (rhymes), prasa, anuprasa (alliteration), etc. The work appears to have been
composed in a gush of ecstatic devotion.

Nrsimha Nakha Stuti

This is a short eulogy of the nails of God Nrsimha in two sragdhara verses.
According to tradition, Madhva composed these two verses, and had them prefixed to his
disciple Trivikrama Panditacharya’s Vayustuti, extolling Madhva. They are now recited as
part of the Vayustuti, at the beginning and at the end.

Dvadasa Stotra

This Stotra, in twelve short adhyayas, comprising 126 verses, in a variety of metres,
handled with distinct musical effect, is believed to have been composed by Madhva at the
time of his acquisition of the image of Sri Krsna which he installed in his Mutt at Udipi. The
author has woven many beautiful and profound truths of religion and metaphysics in this
Stotra. It is said to have given the first impetus to the birth of the great devotional literature
of the Haridasas. It occupies a preeminent position in Dvaita literature in Sanskrit.

Krsnamrtamaharnava

This is an anthology of 242 verses, including five of benedictory nature in praise of

Visnu, from various sources. Though it is mostly in anustubh, there are other metres, too.
The verses are attributed to Siva, Narada, Pulastya, Dharma, Brahma, Markandeya, Marici,
Atri, Angiras, Pulaha, Atreya, Kausika, Agastya, Suta, Vyasa and Rukmangada. Two verses -
52 and 66 - of this anthology occur also in the Mukundamala of Kulasekhara.

The work emphasizes the need for and efficacy of fasts on Ekadasi days, indicates the
way of determination of Ekadasi and Dvadasi tithis, the worship of Saligramas, the wearing
of Urdhva-pundras, etc. Interestingly, verse 10 refers to the worship of Visnu with bilva
leaves which is rather uncommon among Vaisnavas.

The work concludes with an exhortation to his followers to cultivate love and
devotion to God at all times. From the fourteenth year of one’s life, a man or woman does
good or bad deeds which, at the very lowest calculation, cause not less than ten future births.
Thus there is no hope of attaining freedom from transmigratory career by exhausting the
effects of karma. Bhakti is the only way to release from the ills of karma.

69
 Tantrasara Sangraha

This work deals with a substantial element of tantric mysticism in Madhva worship,
and rituals including nyasas, mudras, etc. This covers different Vaisnava modes of worship
and initiation, diksa under the Tantras. This work claims to be an abridgement of a more
detailed work by the author named Vyasa, vide verse 77. This work is metrical in form, and
is divided into four chapters containing 442 verses.

The first chapter gives in detail the countless forms of the Lord presiding over the
letters of the alphabet, their special characteristics and mantras together with the procedure of
their meditation, chanting and nyasa. The second chapter deals with the auxiliaries of homa
and kalasapuja. The third chapter deals with matters relating to iconography, temple
architecture, consecration of idols, etc. It deals with the choice of proper material for the
casting of images, their poses, standard measurements, the choice of proper sites for
construction of temples, area required for the purpose, the nature of building materials, the
construction of domes, gopuras, prakaras, etc for temples, the nature of court yards,
mandapas, etc. It records the religious ceremonies connected with the ankurarpana,
palikapuja, bali and other ceremonials. It records the way of actual installation of the idols
after the ceremonies, their bathing in holy waters, abhisheka amidst recitation of Vedic
mantras, and subsequent festivities connected with the feeding of guests, and the final bath,
avabratha after the rites. It also touches on the subject of renovating temples fallen into ruins
or disrepairs. The chapter ends with a reference to minor deities to be set up and worshipped
in a temple. The last chapter is a resume of the special mantras bearing on the entire subject
in the original Tantrasara of Vyasa.

Madhva’s exposition refers primarily to the worship of Visnu and consecration of

Vaisnava temples. He refers to other kinds of Tantras, probably Vaikhanasa, prescribing
other modes of consecration. As for himself, he followed the Pancaratra Agama.

Sadacara Smrti

This is a small compendium of codes governing a man’s daily life and activities from
a strictly orthodox point of view. It is in keeping with the ancient ideal of varnasrama-
dharma and an ideal brahminical life. It touches upon the topics of sandhya, brahmajnana,
vaisvadeva, duties of ascetics, etc. This work, in 41 verses, is said to be a short anthology of
the precepts of Vyasa, on religious life. It is mostly in anustubh. This work is stated to have
been commented upon by Viswanadha Vyasa of the 16th century AD.

Yati Pranava Kalpa

This is a small handbook explaining the correct mode of adopting sannyasa and
entering the fourth order of life. It deals with the method of initiating the disciple,
mantropadesa and administering the oath of asceticism to him. The oath of loyalty to the
Order administered to the new entrant is from the standpoint of Vaisnava Realism of
Madhva. It runs thus: ‘Never shall I forswear Visnu and the Vaisnavas. Never shall I deem
Visnu to be on par or identical with other gods. Never shall I associate with those who hold
the doctrine of identity or equality of God or soul’. The initiated shall spend his time trying
to improve his knowledge of the Sastras. He shall worship the Lord, and practise the
pranava-japa regularly to realize God.

70
 Krsna Jayanti Nirnaya

This work deals with the krisnajayanti vrata, the birth anniversary ritual of Sri Krsna.
Madhva attaches special importance to the worship of Krsna and hails His birth anniversary
as a vrata for observance with devotion and austerity. He enjoins on his followers a complete
fast that day, and this is followed by Vaisnavites to this day. Special worship is held at
midnight when the incarnation is believed to have taken place on the 8th day of the dark
fortnight of Sravana. Arghya is offered welcoming the Lord at that moment. The fast is
broken the next morning.

Kanduka Stuti

Kandukastuti, Krsnastuti or Krsnagadya as it is variously called is a stotra, in praise

of Krsna, in two smart alliterative verses. The name kandukastuti means ‘generally repeated
by Hindu girls at the time of playing with a ball’. But the content of this work does not
warrant any such surmise.

Two other minor works of Madhva, one on Jyotisa Sastra and another on
Tithinirnaya, are stated to have been discovered.

71
 8. Jayatirtha
General

Jayatirtha makes a remarkable contribution to the Dvaita thought and its literature. He
gives final shape and form to its concepts and categories, standardizes their definitions, and
formulates new ones where Madhva had not formulated, in the light of contemporary logic
and philosophy. He accomplishes this task by the power of his faith, his brilliant intellect,
keen dialectical abilities, his insight into the unity of the doctrines of Dvaita philosophy, his
philosophical analysis of problems, his extraordinary genius for amplification and
clarification of details. He pays equal attention to the task of critical and constructive
exposition of the Madhva Siddhanta and to dialectical refutation of the hostile views. He
emphasizes the ultimate thesis of Madhva that the ‘reality of the world and other principles
should be assigned no more than their proper place as a doctrine of lesser philosophical value
and prominence, beside the highest truth of the independence and infinitude of the Supreme
Reality’. He makes an impassioned statement of the grand synthesis of Upanisadic thought
currents converging towards the ideology of the Svatantra-Advitiya-Brahmavada. For his
contribution to the Dvaita system, he is honoured with the title ‘Tikacarya’ and constitutes,
with Madhva and Vyasatirtha, the ‘Munitrayam’ of Dvaita Vedanta.

He is the author of clearcut definitions of such metaphysical conceptions as tattvam,

saksi, visesa, svatantra, paratantra, etc. in Dvaita philosophy. He defines tattvam, reality as
‘anaropitam parimitivisayah’ and explains its significance so as to make it fool-proof against
the criticisms of Sriharsa. He elucidates, for the first time, the true nature of
visayavisayibhava, relation between knowledge and its object, as acceptable to Madhvaism.
Besides defining the concepts, he is the earliest to lay down the proper methodology for
treatment of topics, prakriya.

72
Works of Jayatirtha
Over 22 works have been ascribed to Jayatirtha. The salient features of his important
works from the point of view of Dvaita philosophy are stated hereunder.

Tattvasamkhyana Tika

It is a short commentary on the first of the ten Prakaranas of Madhva. Jayatirtha gives
the definition of tattva, of great philosophical importance, in this work. He also gives the
rationale of the classification of reality into svatantra and paratantra of Madhva’s philosophy
in his inimitable way.

Tattvoddyota is a well-thought-out plea for the dualistic interpretation of tattvamasi.

Visnu Tattva Vinirnaya is the biggest of his commentaries on the Prakaranas of

Madhva. In this work, he refers extensively to the earlier interpretations of Padmanabhatirtha
and Naraharitirtha, and quotes extensively from the works of Citsukha only to repel his
attacks on the concept of bheda, difference, in the Madhva thought.

Mayavada Khandana Tika quotes from Sriharsha and Anandabodha in regard to

cessation of avidya which, according to Jayatirtha, belongs to a fifth order of predication.

In Prapanca-Mithyatva-Anumana Khandana Tika, he explains, at the outset, that

it is incumbent on the Realist to expose the un-tenability of the doctrine of the unreality of the
world. As the Brahmasutra specifically states that the Brahman is author, etc of the world, it
becomes a travesty unless the world is shown to be real.

In Upadhi Khandana, also known as Tattvaprakasika, he says that the Advaitin

must either give up the idea of ‘ignorance’ attaching to the Brahman, or else account for it in
a rational way. It is foolish to take refuge in the durghatattva of avidya. In this work, a
commentary on Madhva’s Brahmasutra Bhashya, he supersedes the commentaries of other
Madhva Pontiffs. This work of Jayatirtha has more than eleven commentaries written on it.
He keeps strictly to the original, avoiding all digressions, and criticism of rival interpretations
of the Sutras. Occasionally he refutes the interpretations of Samkara, alluded to in the
Bhashya.

In Kathalaksana Tika, he gives a clear exposition of katha, dialectic disputation, and

throws much historical light on various points. He refers to the three different classifications
of katha adopted by Sastrakaras.

Jayatirtha’s Nyayasudha is a classic, a superb controversial treatise and an

illuminating commentary on the Anu Vyakhyana, all in one. It is familiarly known to
Madhva scholars as Sudha. ‘Sudha va pathaniya vasudha va palaniya’ is a saying attesting to
the universal homage paid to it by traditional scholars.

This work quotes the views embodied in the Bhashyas of Samkara, Bhaskara,
Ramanuja and Yadava Prakasa on the Sutras, and the commentaries of Vachaspati,
Padmapada, Prakasatman and Amalananda, as well as those of the Samkhyatattvakoumudi,
Tattvabindu, Nyayakusumanjali, Khandanakhandakhyada, Citsukhi, Manamohanakara,

73
Nyayalilavati, Nyayavartika-tatparyatika, etc, and refutes them wherever necessary in the
course of the work. Similarly, he reviews the doctrines of the Bhatta and Prabhakara Schools
of Mimamsa, the philosophy of propositions, and various views of Nyaya-Vaisesika and
Samkhya-Yoga realists as well as those of the Buddhists, Jains, Pasupatas, Saktas, and refutes
them in proper contexts with wealth of details. He criticizes the doctrine of sphota. He
eulogizes the passages of the Anu Vyakhyana to brilliant advantage by making them capable
of meeting a variety of objections. In this context, Nyayasudha can be said to be a marvel at
commentary-writing.

In the Isa Upanisad Bhashya Tika, he severely criticizes the Advaitic and
Visistadvaitic interpretations of the text.

In the Rgbhasya Tika, he gives a lucid exposition of the original, not only in the light
of the authorities cited by Madhva, but of other standard works as those of Yaksa. He
discusses the grammatical derivation of many Vedic words in the original in the light of
Paninian grammar. The work shows his mastery of Vedic grammar in all its intricacies. He
criticizes the interpretations of other commentators on Rg Veda, and explains the details of
the adhyatma interpretation of the hymns.

In the Gitabhashya Prameya Dipika, he draws attention to the interpretations of

Samkara and Bhaskara, and criticizes them. These references are valuable not only for Gita
interpretation, but also for text-criticism and solving problems connected with authorship and
genuineness of the commentaries attributed to these two writers. This work is also valuable
to a proper understanding of the hidden depths of thought, and suggestiveness of the original
Bhashya of Madhva. He displays a soul of wit, and a formidable array of details. He gives
suitable explanation to the grammatical lapses of Madhva in his Bhashya. He refers twice to
the commentary of Naraharitirtha.

Jayatirtha has to his credit some independent original works. Of them, Vadavali is
important. It is also designated Vadamala. It is a dialectic refutation of the illusionistic
hypothesis with all its logical and metaphysical reasoning. He challenges the theory of
Monism that our senses always deceive us, being merely appearance-interpreting. He
vindicates the fitness of sense-knowledge to reveal objects as they are. In this work, he deals
with all important aspects of pramanas, avidya, mithya, bheda, visesas, dream-cognitions,
etc. While quoting the views expressed in the Tattvapradipika of Citsukha, the Vivarana,
Nyayakandali, etc he criticizes them. The Vadavali is thus the earliest polemical tract of the
post-Madhva period, acting, in many ways, as the forerunner of the Nyayamrta of
Vyasatirtha.

His Pramana Paddhati is his biggest independent work. It is the standard work on
Dvaita logic and epistemology, and all issues of metaphysics. It deals with the nature, scope
and definition of pramanas, their ways of functioning, theories of Truth and Error, the nature
and validity of knowledge, etc. It is modelled on the Pramanalaksana, but reviews
additionally the epistemological theories in the six systems of Indian thought, both orthodox
and heretical. It is divided into three chapters – pratyaksa, anumana and sabda.

His minor independent works include Padyamala, a work on daily worship. It is

indeed a summary of the method of worship enunciated in Tantrasara Samgraha of
Madhva. Another work Sataparaadha Stotra is a stotra praying for forgiveness of a hundred
sins a man commits every day.

74
 Jayatirtha’s contribution to the concepts of Mithyatva (falsity of the world),
Anirvacaniyatva and ‘Difference’ is quite remarkable. He contends that it is not possible to
formulate a satisfactory definition of falsity. It cannot be viewed as anirvacaniya,
indefinable, or as non-existence. For him, a Dvaitin, the world is a reality and is ipso facto
not the locus of non-existence. He does not accept the third order of predication between the
poles of reality and unreality, existence and non-existence. The objects of illusions could be
legitimately treated as ‘unreals’ appearing as ‘reals’. He contends that a dispassionate
examination of the data of illusions, and the verdict of sublating cognition could establish that
the object presented in illusions is adjudged to be absolutely non-existent. After all,
experience is what establishes what is possible and what is not possible.

As for the concept of Difference, he devotes considerable attention to an exposition of

the category of Difference in Madhva’s philosophy. According to him, the perception of
difference is a fait accompli. Unless difference is conceded within the limits of perception, it
cannot be logically refuted. Difference is a settled fact of life and experience, and cannot be
allowed to be dismissed, as the presence of difference is a fait accompli. As such any
repudiation of the category of Difference is unacceptable. The perception of difference is
possible without involving interdependence of correlates. Jayatirtha explains the view of
Difference in Vadavali thus: ‘Difference is not the attribute of both the correlates, but of only
one of them, signalized by the other. The use of the singular in cases like anayor bhedah
should therefore be understood in a collective sense (samudayartha) as in anayos svarupam,
where, surely, two things cannot share the same svarupa. The very idea of svarupa is limited
to individuality, even so, in the case of difference. This difference should, however, be
accepted as the nature of things, revealed along with the perception of objects. If it were not
so, anything known by us would be known as identical with all others, and one would have to
fall into frequent doubts, even when one’s own personality is perceived, whether one is
oneself or someone else! That such wild doubts do not arise is due to the simple fact that the
difference of an object from all others is revealed in a general way, in the very act of its
perception. Such general awareness of an object as differentiated from the rest of the
objective sphere is not to be confused with omniscience! But, it cannot be denied that, in
knowing a given thing, the saksi has a general awareness of difference from all others.
Without the recognition of such general awareness of difference, no conviction of the
invariable and universal concomitance of hetus and sadhyas could be established. Without
such conviction, no inference is possible. This does not suggest specific knowledge of each
and every other thing in the universe for the perception of difference per se, without reference
to specific counter-correlates. This is not necessary either. Doubts about the nature of
objects are due, however, to the perception of an object, as such distinguished, from other
things, coupled with the obscuration of its distinction for certain other objects that bear a
close resemblance to it. Unless some such explanation is adopted, our doubts would be all
embracing, instead of being limited, as they generally are, to two or three alternatives only, in
normal experience.’

In as much as most of his works are in the form of commentaries on the works of
Madhva, Jayatirtha is prevented from devoting full and unrestricted attention to dialectical
treatment of topics, as he is limited to the exigencies of the texts of Madhva. But within the
limits of the opportunities afforded by the subject matter of the original texts, he has risen to
great heights in dialectics. Jayatirtha is, therefore, rightly called the father of the dialectical
movement in Dvaita thought.

75
 9. Visnudasa
Visnudasa, the successor of Jayatirtha, elaborates in his Vadaratnavali the topics dealt
with by the latter in his Vadavali and other works. He harnesses the principles of
interpretation of the Mimamsa and Vyakarana Sastras for constructive exposition of the
Dvaita siddhanta. He quotes from the Sutras of Jaimini and the works of Mimansakas like
Kumarila, Bhavanatha and Varadaraja. He defends Madhva’s interpretation of important
identity texts like tat-tvam-asi, ekam-eva-advitiyam, neha-nanasti-kimcina, etc. Quoting from
the Mahabhashya, Kaiyata, Padamanjari and other works, he has worked out 20 different
explanations of tat-tvam-asi and seven of ekam-eva-advitiyam in support of the reality of
difference between the jiva and the Brahman, and the reality of the world. He deals
exhaustively on the concepts of Difference, Bhavarupajnana, Mithyatva, etc. This work is in
the nature of a philosophical treatise on Dvaita Vedanta as a precursor to the works of
Vyasatirtha.

In the first chapter, eleven possible definitions of falsity are reviewed including those
made by Pancapalika and Citsukha. They are analyzed and refuted. Some other syllogisms
on the falsity of difference on the premises of the bhedatvam and mayatvam are set at rest. It
also deals with the issue of drsyasambandhanupapatti raised in the Istasiddhi and other
works. This part of the work follows the Mayavada Khandana Tika of Jayatirtha.

The work then discusses the issue of mithyatvam and the connected issues. He argues
that inference is, by its nature and constitution, dependent on perception and cannot go
against its grain, upajivyavirodha. Our perceptions are quite capable of grasping the un-
contradicted and un-contradictable reality of experience, even though they are limited to the
present. But according to Advaitins, ‘contradiction’ is not merely the cessation of a thing
after sometime, but a denial of its existence in the past, the present and the future. Such a
denial is not, obviously, possible with regard to things that do exist at a given time and place,
though liable to destruction later, and not existing before production. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the un-contradicted reality of a thing is established by perception
itself which is admittedly self-valid, to the satisfaction of the saksi, whose convictions are
indisputable. The reality established by saksi is of the same order as that posited of the
Brahman, that is, absolute, traikalikabadhabhavalaksanam. The plea of provisional validity
of the world advanced by Advaitins is not acceptable as the doctrine of degrees of reality has
been disproved in the Vivaranavidambana. He argues convincingly that there is no reason to
doubt the reality of objects established by perception.

In the second chapter, Visnudasa establishes the jivas to be radically different from
the Brahman and from one another. He cites a number of references from the Upanisads to
emphasize the persistence of their difference in the state of release. He argues that the
difference existing in the Brahman from jiva is not open to ordinary perception or inference
for the reason that the Brahman is cognizable only through scriptures, and the scriptures
proclaim such a difference. He stresses that the Sruti texts speak of the reality of the world of
matter, and of the difference between the jivas and the Brahman, the mainstay of Dvaita
Vedanta. Besides, he attacks the Advaitic interpretation of the identity of jiva and the
Brahman in the face of tat and tvam signifying two different beings with conflicting
attributes. He quotes from the scriptures that the attributes of plurality, dependence and
limitation of the jivas are their permanent characteristics even in the state of release, moksa.
Further, for him, the distinction of souls from one another is more easily established on the
basis of the uniqueness of the individual experience of pleasure and pain. This uniqueness of

76
experience called vyavastha is an irrefutable fact of experience. It is suicidal to deny its
presence or persistence in the world. According to him, both laymen and philosophers have
to account for it. He emphasizes that, even for an Advaitin, difference is a necessary concept,
if the Brahman is to be defined as something that is absolutely distinguished from all that is
material, unreal and limited.

The third chapter is a refutation of the doctrine of Advaita relating to nescience

enveloping the Brahman. Visnudasa argues that the only ignorance is that present in the jiva
in regard to the Supreme Being and this is to be destroyed by the knowledge of the Supreme.
According to him, there is no proof of the existence of universal ignorance enveloping the
Brahman. His contention stands to reason on the realistic view of difference.

The fourth chapter is a refutation of the doctrine of Nirguna-Brahman and establishes

the view of the Brahman as saguna. The Sruti texts neha nanasti and evam dharman prthak
pasyan, taken together, are shown to deny four possible views regarding the nature of the
attributes of the Brahman and their relation to the Brahman, held respectively by the
Mayavadins, Naiyayikas, Bhaskara and Ramanuja. This chapter reaffirms Madhva’s
metaphysics designated visesas affirming the attributes of the Brahman, simultaneously
negating their separateness. It also seeks to establish the superiority of sagunavidya to the
nirguna doctrine based on the principles of Mimamsa and Vyakarana sastras, and that there is
no irreconcilable conflict between texts like yas sarvajnah and kevalo nirgunasca. What
Visnudasa points out is that the nirguna texts are general in scope, and cannot negative
special attributes of the Brahman expressly stated in the Sruti. According to him, the saguna
texts are logically self-consistent while the nirguna ones bristle with contradictions. The
Brahman is inconceivable without the attribute of omniscience. The text like satyam,
jnanam, anantam, brahma posits certain attributes to the Brahman, and they should be taken
in their explicit sense. There is thus no doubt, according to Visnudasa, that the Brahman is
determinate and qualified, savisesa. The Brahman is full of auspicious attributes that are
eternal and natural, and not due to superimposition of maya. They are countless and
unlimited.

In the fifth chapter, Visnudasa attempts to meet the objections against the concept of
the Qualified Brahman, the Brahman conceived as savisesa being, particularly the logical
difficulties in defining the relation between substance and attributes, in terms of identity,
difference, etc. This is a question of great interest in the philosophy of ‘Substance’ in relation
to its attributes. Madhva philosophers have a distinct contribution to make to these theories.

If the ‘qualities’ are identical with the Brahman, the Brahman would be pluralized and
lose Its integrity. When the Brahman is One Whole, the qualities themselves lose their
plurality and turn out to be distinctions without a difference. They, therefore, become
synonymous in effect. If there is to be a relation, there is to be a subject and its attributes. A
subject cannot become qualified by itself, and without such attributes.

Visnudasa reasons that the relation of identity is to be distinguished into two kinds -
colourless, nirvisesabheda and colourful, savisesabheda. For example, an absolute and
colourless identity exists between the terms ‘dhvani’ and ‘dhvana’. Therefore, they are
synonymous. But in respect of clay and pot, the relation is a colourful identity. The two
terms are, therefore, not synonymous. The principle of visesa then operates as a
representative of difference. It does duty for ‘difference’ without actually brining in
difference into the bargain. It sustains the plurality of attributes and their distinction of

77
difference. Also it renders possible the adjectival relation of the attributes to the substance
and explains how it is possible for one or more attributes to remain unknown, or unnoticed, or
uncharacterized while the subject itself is partially known and characterized. It is self-
governing like the samanvaya, and contains within itself the advantages of both difference
and samanvaya without the demerits of either taken alone. Simultaneously it connects the
substance and attributes, and explains their connection. He argues that adjustments to the
demands of physical, logical, scientific and metaphysical needs are grounded in Visesas,
which are just the power and potency inherent in objects, and which alone can bridge the gap
between identity and difference. Indeed, this discovery, establishment and logical
demonstration of the necessity of this ubiquitous logico-philosophical category and its
enthronement in philosophy are the most significant contributions of Madhva thought to
Indian philosophy.

In the last (sixth) chapter, he establishes the validity of the Vedas and their
apauruseyatva, and makes a brief exposition of the doctrine of self-validity of ‘Knowledge’,
and the validity of saksi, as the highest instrument of its ascertainment.

78
 10. Vyasatirtha

General
Vyasatirtha, Vyasaraya or Vyasaraja Svamin, as he is variously known, was born in
1478 and passed away in 1539. His birth name is Yatiraja. He was given the name of
Vyasatirtha by his guru Brahmanyatirtha at the time of his ordination as a monk. The
complete and reliable account of Vyasatirtha’s life and career is recorded in the biographical
account of Somanatha, titled Vyasayogicarita.

Vyasatirtha was almost the second founder of the system of Madhvaism. In him, the
secular and philosophical prestige of Madhva’s system reached its zenith of recognition.
That the system is a living and flourishing faith in South India as a whole today is due to the
strength he infused into it. His three works - Nyayamrta, Tatparya Chandrika and Tarka
Tandava are considered to uphold the philosophy of Madhvaism in the fields of logic and
metaphysics, Nyaya, Mimamsa, Vyakarana and Vedanta. His religion of service, sympathy
and effort is a direct corollary of his philosophy. He was no inciter of hatred against Siva
though personally a staunch Vaisnava himself. He composed a stotra in praise of Siva and, to
this day, a special service is held in the Vyasaraja Mutt at Sosale on the Mahasivaratri day,
when the Sivalinga installed by Vyasatirtha there is worshipped.

His mission is two-pronged-religious and philosophical. In both the areas, he

eminently succeeded. Among his disciples were Purandaradasa and Kanakadasa both of
whom are among the greatest poet-saints of India hailing from Karnataka. Both of them are
part of the Dasakuta which has evoked popular enthusiasm for the philosophy of Vaisnavism
in Karnataka. Its influence on the ethical uplift of the masses is well known. Even the
Chaitnya Movement in Bengal flourished wholly in the lifetime of Vyasatirtha, and owed a
great deal of its inspiration to the philosophy of Madhva as expositioned by Vyasatirtha.
Chaitanya’s biographer Kavikarnapur speaks reverentially of the great three works of
Vyasatirtha as the Visnu-samhita.

79
Works of Vyasatirtha

Nyayamrta

Nyayamrta, the magnum opus of Vyasatirtha, undertakes a complete vindication of

the philosophical power and prestige of the realistic metaphysics of Madhva, Anandatirtha.
The first chapter discusses the central idea of ‘idealism’, the unreality of phenomenal world,
and refutes the doctrines of Advaita in all their manifestations. The second chapter refutes
the doctrine of Akhandartha and its application to Upanisadic texts. He shows that
‘difference’ is real, cognizable and characterizable with the help of visesas. He establishes
that Madhva’s scheme of five-fold difference has the sanction and support of the three
pramanas. The chapter ends with a discourse of the Dvaita view as to the atomicity of the
soul. The third chapter critically examines the place and significance to be assigned to the
scriptural injunctions regarding the various means of realization such as sravana, manana,
religious instructions, self-discipline, etc in expediting God-realization. The fourth chapter
elucidates the doctrine of mukti as understood by Madhva. It maintains that gradation obtains
in moksa, and must do so in view of certain logical necessities and scriptural admissions.

In this work, Vyasatirtha details various topics to refute dialectically the

interpretations of Advaita. He expands on the works of Jayatirtha and Visnudasa, disputing
the explanations of eminent Advaitins up to his time. He discusses several doctrines of
Advaita Vedanta, not noticed by his predecessors, particularly Visnudasa, and deals with new
definitions of concepts such as falsity. His contribution to Madhva thought is thus new and
original. He is not only the founder of the dialectic of the Madhva School, but also the
fountainhead of the entire controversial literature of the Dvaita-Advaita schools subsequent to
him. ‘It is Vyasatirtha, who, for the first time, took special pains to collect together, from the
vast range of Advaitic literature, all the crucial points for discussion and arrange them on a
novel, yet thoroughly scientific and systematic plan’.

This work of Vyasatirtha is not a mere summary or adaptation of the works of his
predecessors. It is the most stimulating philosophical examination of the premises and
conclusions, the basis and superstructures of the Dvaita and Advaita systems from a
dialectical angle, and giving the final verdict, after due examination, in favour of realistic
metaphysics. It represents the highest achievement of the dialectical genius of the Madhva
School. In the true spirit of a philosopher, he goes through a long and arduous process of
thought-dissection to show that the thesis of Monism cannot be proved and that there is no
philosophical justification for rejecting the reality of the world and its experiences established
by all known means of proof and knowledge. This work is a great contribution to all
analytical thinking in Vedanta and, according to Dasgupta, ‘Vyasatirtha stands almost
unrivalled in the whole field of Indian thought’.

Vyasatirtha begins his Nyayamrta with a demolition of the foundations of mithyatva,

and builds his system of realistic metaphysics on the firm foundations of the validity of
experience grounded in the verdict of flawless sense-perception, pratyaksa certified by saksi.
He adopts a very rationalistic approach to the problem of philosophy. He stresses that the
world is real in the sense in which the Brahman is held to be real, in a manner comprehended
by the senses, pratyaksa yogya sattvanirukti, and in terms which necessarily veto the
unreality of the world. He adds that if the reality of the Brahman is essentially indefinable, so
is the case with the world, too. The Brahman is, indeed, claimed to be somehow real even
though Its reality may not admit of any kind of logical definition. He argues that there is

80
nothing illogical if the dvaitin chooses to regard the world as real by virtue of its essential and
inalienable reality, even though such reality may not be logically definable. He further adds
that if the reality of the Brahman stands for something more than a distinction from unreality,
or for unconditioned existence, such a definition is to apply to the world, too. The reality of
the world may be claimed to be revealed by the saksi-pratyaksa. It is revealed by the first
and primary perception of the saksi. The world of perception has a right to be regarded as
real by virtue of the same kind of reality that is attributed to the Brahman, and conveyed by
the expression ‘real’ which, when applied to it, suffices to repudiate its falsity.

Vyasatirtha expounds the concept of visesas bridging the gap between substance and
attributes, and bringing them together into an integrated whole, rationalizing their mutual
relationship. He defines precisely the relation between substance and attributes in terms of
identity-in-difference. The relation is best known as savisesabheda. The difference of a
thing from another, and from any of its attributes, is colourful identity, sa-visesabhinna. This
basic identity precludes the possibility of regress of logical relations, while it recognizes
visesa as a peculiar potency of the thing in question. It operates as a ‘representative’ of
difference and helps to distinguish the attributes effectively from each other and from the
substance, without prejudice to the integrity of the whole. As such, it obviates the flaw of
synonymy of expression, paryayatva. Visesa is thus, by definition, a peculiar characteristic of
a thing which enables inseparable whole to keep intact its richness of content from being lost
in the underlying unity of essence, and preserve variety of aspects and attributes in their
rightful places without overlapping of any kind, or from usurping or invading each other’s
place or jurisdiction or function. It holds the master-key to the mystery of substance and
attributes. He analyses Upanisadic texts such as vijnanam anandam brahma to establish the
acceptance of visesas which help in detecting difference-in-identity and diversity in unity.
Visesa is to be accepted as a sarvatantra-siddhanta.

Visesas are to be admitted only in cases of proven identity where, nevertheless, a

difference is permitted. It does not give any right to outlaw all difference, and explain
differentiation everywhere in normal experience, as in respect of any two objects like a pot,
and a piece of cloth, on the basis of visesas. Visesas are just meant to function as a
representative of difference where actual and absolute difference is not recognized to exist.

Vyasatirtha handles the concept of visesas in a purely philosophical perspective. He,

therefore, devotes considerable attention to the establishment of saksi as the highest basis of
all pramanas, and the ultimate source and guarantor of all proof. Sense-perception, as tested
by the saksi, and ratified by it, acquires absolute and infallible certainty. The reality of
human experience such as pleasure and pain, gradation and diversity, is all grounded upon the
verdict of saksi and ratified by it. As such it is ipso facto entitled to the highest validity. He
asserts, like Madhva, that, if any scriptural texts deny the validity of world and human
experience, such texts need reinterpretation in accordance with the verdict of the saksi, in
favour of the reality of the world experience. It is for this reason that Madhva and his
commentators emphasize the primacy of pratyaksa over other means of proof, and the
supreme significance of saksi-pratyaksa as a support of all other pramanas, upajivya. They
are ardent champions of the view of the philosophical Realism that our senses are essentially
capable of, and competent to, revealing objective reality as it is, and are not merely
appearance-interpreting.

Vyasatirtha argues that experience shows that the jivas are limited creatures differing
immeasurably from the universal consciousness of the Brahman. The Brahman is established

81
by scripture as an omniscient, all-powerful Being. There is an insurmountable barrier in the
proposition of identity between them. The very proof of their existence is the proof of their
being endowed with such mutually incompatible attributes. In the face of such odds, the
proposition of identity between the Brahman and the jiva is not acceptable.

Tatparya Candrika

The Tatparya Candrika, familiarly known as Candrika, is a discursive commentary on

Jayatirtha’s Tattva-Prakasika, and pertains to the Sutra-Prasthana of the Dvaita Vedanta. It is
a great contribution to the philosophy of the Brahmasutras in the form of a close, critical and
comparative study of the Bhashyas of Samkara, Ramanuja and Madhva. It also makes a
comparative study of the commentaries of Bhamati, Pancapadika, Vivarana and Kalpataru of
the Advaita School, the Sutraprakasa and the Adhikaranasaravali of the Ramanuja School,
and the Tattvaprakasika and the Nyayasudha of the Dvaita School.

There are two aspects to this work. One is constructive exposition of Siddhanta
interpretations of the Dvaita School, and the other is logical examination and criticism of the
interpretations of the other two Schools. This work is a very remarkable commentary of the
Dvaita School applying the dialectic machinery with great brilliance to the purely interpretive
literature on the Sutras. Vyasatirtha terminates the work with the Adhyasa II of the Sutras. It
is completed by his later successor Raghunadhatirtha. Vyasatirtha’s Candrika is the earliest
commentary on the Tattvaprakasika, and still remains its most authoritative, critical and
constructive exposition. It is rather the last word on the Sutra-Prasthana of Madhva.

Tarka Tandava

In this work, Vyasatirtha undertakes a thorough examination of the issues relating to

categories and thought-measuring devices between his School and the Nyaya-Vaisesika. This
work criticizes the views expressed in standard treatises of Nyaya such as Kusumanjali,
Tattvacintamani, etc. It is divided into three chapters corresponding to the three pramanas
recognized in the Madhva system. The pramana ‘Anumana’ is dealt with in the last chapter,
though it is considered the second one in the Madhva School.

Vyasatirtha goes into the inner ramifications and technical details of the various topics
as formulated by leading writers of the Nyaya, Mimamsa and Vyakarana Schools. He
demonstrates their practical and theoretical limitations. He emphasizes the comparative
superiority and compactness of his school in relation to them.

His other works include Mandaramanjaris such as Mayavada-Khandana-

Mandaramanjari, Upadhi-Khandana-Mandaramanjari, Prapanca-Mithyatva-Anumana-
Khandana-Mandaramanjari; Bhedojjivana, etc. The bottom-line of the work Bhedojjivana is
that the reality of ‘difference’ is established by all the three pramanas - sense-perception,
reason and revelation. Of this work, Dr. Nagaraja Sarma states thus: ‘Within a short compass,
Vyasatirtha has covered the ground of the entire monistic literature pushed into contemporary
prominence, and argued an unexpurgated case for the Realism of Madhva’.

Dasgupta says that ‘the logical skill and depth of acute dialectical thinking shown by
Vyasatirtha stands almost unrivalled in the whole of Indian thought’. His defense and
reinforcement of the Madhva interpretation of the Sutras, with the help of the rich technical
and exegetical resources of the Nyaya, Vyakarana and Purva-Mimamsa systems and other

82
ancillary literature, are monumental achievements in the history of Indian thought. He carries
his dialectics into the realm of pure thought. His work Tarka Tandava stands testimony to his
criticism of the logical concepts, categories and doctrines of the Nyaya-Vaisesika system
hostile to or inconsistent with the principles of Madhva theism.

His role in Dvaita Vedanta and its literature is that of an interpreter. He is the highest
authority on the technicalities of the system and its most redoubtable champion. His three
works – Nyayamruta, Candrika and Tarka Tandava are known as ‘Vyasatraya’, the three eyes
of the man-lion of Madhva-siddhanta. He establishes that the system of Madhva is not a mere
revival of the Bhakti-cult, but a mighty philosophical movement of thought. By eschewing
from his works theological issues such as the supremacy of Visnu over Siva, the sastraic
sanction for taptamudradharana, he establishes himself to be a philosopher. At the same
time, he provides ample scope for expression for the religious and emotional life of the
followers of Madhva by giving a new impetus to the Dasakuta movement. He inspired
saintly souls like Purandara Dasa, Kanaka Dasa and others while laying the foundations of
the great system of Karnatak Sangita. He made a great impact on the followers of Caitanya
in Bengal as the illustrious exponent of pure Vaisnavism of Madhva, paving the way for the
ultimate affiliation of Bengal Vaisnavism to Madhvaism through the spiritual lineage of
Vyasatirtha himself. Incidentally, he enjoyed the highest esteem of the greatest Hindu
Emperor of South India – Sri Krsnadevaraya.

The contribution of Vyasatirtha also lies in the application of the principles of Purva-
Mimamsa and Vyakarana in the exposition of Madhva-Siddhanta in his works. He represents
a new phase of development in Dvaita Vedanta, and its literature. He demonstrates a
remarkable command in the intricacies of the Mimamsa Sastra and its literature. From
Vyasatirtha onwards, the appeal to Purva-Mimamsa is a regular feature in Dvaita literature.
Vyasatirtha has been accredited, with Madhva and Jayatirtha, as one of the Munitrayam of
Madhva-Siddhanta, the Dvaita School.

83
 11. Other Madhva Pontiffs

Vijayendratirtha

Vijayindratirtha is an important follower of Madhva faith in particular, and guardian

saint of Vaisnavism in general, in the religious history of Tamil Nadu. He vindicates the
power and prestige of the philosophical system of Madhva, and his interpretation of the
Sutras stems the Siva-advaita movement then reigning in the South, and holds the Dvaita
doctrine and interpretations against the attacks of Visistadvaitic critics. A prolific writer of
the Dvaita School, he is a doughty champion of the reign of Realism in Indian philosophy in
the post-Vyasatirtha period. Besides, he is a yogi, with proficiency in all the sixty-four kalas,
arts.

In defense of the Dvaita School, Vijayindratirtha states that quotations from unknown
and untraceable sources in Madhva literature is not peculiar to Madhva alone, but is common
in the Bhashyas of Samkara, Ramanuja, Srikanta, etc, and even in the texts of Kalpasutras.
Madhva is a philosopher who thought for himself, and spoke out his convictions without fear
or favour. Difference in method and outlook is what distinguishes Madhva’s system from
others. Vijayindratirtha repulses the attack on seeming indifference of Madhva to Purva-
Mimamsa, and establishes its un-tenability. As for avatars, he says succinctly that either one
believes in them, or not. It is not a matter for argument. As for the style and linguistic
embellishments of Madhva, they are a matter of taste, and not the test of the soundness or
rationale of one’s metaphysical views.

Vadirajatirtha

Vadirajatirtha is an eminent successor of Vyasatirtha. Tradition states that he was a

disciple of Vyasatirtha along with Vijayindratirtha. Yuktimallika, in 5379 slokas, is his
magnum opus. His work marks a new phase in the history of Dvaita literature and breathes
the spirit of a new age which produced popular exponents of Madhva-Siddhanta both in
Sanskrit and in Kannada. He professes great admiration for Madhva, and pays him homage a
number of times in Yuktimallika.

Yuktimallika is divided into five chapters called Sourabhas - Guna, Suddhi, Bheda,
Visva and Phala. Chapters I and II establish the twin-principles of Madhva’s theism that the
Brahman is ever full of attributes, and free of any kind of imperfection. Chapter III
establishes that the jiva and the Brahman can never be identical. Chapter IV establishes the
reality of the cosmos, refuting incidentally the doctrine of Maya. The last Chapter is the
essence of the Chapters III and IV relating to the Brahmasutras as interpreted by Madhva. It
is significant for the fullness of theological information about the Dvaitins’ view of moksa, its
treatment of Madhva being an avatar of Vayu, and its vindication of the sastraic character of
branding the body with the symbols sacred to Vaisnavism, taptamudrankana. In essence,
Yuktimallika is an elaboration of the thesis of the Brahmasutras as deduced by Madhva.
Vadirajatirtha gives a complete rationalistic view to his treatment of the subject, and deserves
credit for many original arguments and interpretations not found elsewhere in the works of
the Siddhantha.

The outstanding feature of Vadirajatirtha’s work is his ‘commonsense approach’ to

philosophy. He claims to adopt a purely rationalistic approach in judging the relative merits

84
of the Advaita and Dvaita systems, and casts himself in favour of the Dvaita system. He is
the earliest to realize the opening line of the Aitereya Brahmana favouring the doctrine of
Gradation of gods stated by Madhva. While accepting the gradation of Madhva, he states that
the same text disposes of the identity of Brahma, Visnu and Siva, preached by some, on the
authority of certain Puranas. He seeks to establish Visnu as the Supreme Brahman and cites
several texts from the Bhagavata and other Puranas not quoted by his predecessors. As for
the philosophical issues, Vadirajatirtha attacks the concept of Nirguna Brahman as impossible
and un-sastraic. The Bhagavata and other texts attribute infinitude, anantya to the Saguna
Brahman. He argues that if the Saguna Brahman were unlimited in time and space, where
could the Nirguna Brahman be. Banished from all time and space, the Nirguna Brahman
could be like the proverbial hare’s horn. He further argues that the monistic texts in the
Sutras have to be figuratively interpreted, in a manner compatible with experience. It is
ridiculous for man, who calls piteously to heaven’s aid in illness and misery, to arrogate
divinity to himself in moments of elation and ease.

He questions why the Advaitin does not assert the identity of the Brahman with
insentient matter, if the teaching of the scriptures is to be accepted without any demur. The
Advaitin stops with Jiva-Isvara aikya concept without moving to Jada-Isvara aikya. The
identity of pure consciousness postulated by an Advaitin is only an artificial identity with no
support whatsoever. At the same time, a bare identity of pure consciousness is in no way
opposed to the reality, or persistence of difference.

In this work, he explains the eternity of the jiva, the main plank of the Dvaita system,
in its body and moksa thus: ‘When the mind is inwardly directed, as in moksa, there is no
possibility of our paying attention to external objects of the world. When the attention is
concentrated on a particular subject, it is not possible to think of another. A gamester lost in
the game of dice, hears not even the tidings of the death of his own mother! A village belly,
absorbed in filling her pail of water at the village well, hardly notices the hungry looks of the
passer-by, at her. The dancer balancing the pot on her head, and her thought concentrated on
it, looks not at her admirers in the hall whose eyes are riveted on her graceful movements and
contours. All of us in life are dvitas in the sense of having two gateways of knowledge, the
material and the spiritual. The physical body connected with these dvitas is Dvaita. It is
possible for us, human selves, to contact external reality only through the physical frame. But
there is no physical body in release. The released soul has no body or sense organs that can
be distinguished from its essence. In these circumstances, there is no possibility of their
having knowledge of external reality and reacting to the stimuli through external senses.
Whatever sense organs the released souls have are thus spiritually constituted and hence part
and parcel of their being. They have no body or sense organs in the physical sense of the
term in which we use them. They are ‘bodies’ only in a very special sense. The nearest
example is the so-called heavenly voice, asarira vak referred to in the Puranas. It is in this
sense that Sruti denies sensory knowledge to the released.’

In another work, Nyayaratnavali, Vadirajatirtha draws a vivid contrast between the

limited self of man and the infinite Lord of all creation, and asks how the two can ever be
identical. He further points out that no identification is possible unless there are two things to
be identified and such duality is necessarily opposed to Monism. Vadirajatirtha is the first
Madhva scholar to have written a regular commentary on the entire epic Mahabharata, from
the point of view of Madhvaism. Among the stotras written by Vadirajatirtha, the most
popular is the Dasavatara Stotra, celebrating the ten avatars of Visnu.

85
 Narayanacarya

Narayanacarya is a fiery champion of the Dvaita School as against the Advaita

system. His main works are Advaitakalanala, Madhvamantrarthamanjari and
Visnutattvaviveka. Satyanatha Yati is another fiery champion of the Dvaita School, who was
contemporary to Narayanacarya.

Vidyadhirajatirtha

Vidyadhirajatirtha was the immediate disciple and successor of Jayatirtha. His

important works are Chandogya-Bhashya-Tika, Gita-Nivrti and Visnu-Sahasranama-
Bhashya. The Visnu-Sahasranama-Bhashya is important on the consideration that
Visnusahasranama is held in very high esteem in Madhva system, and that Vidyadhirajatirtha
happens to be the earliest Dvaita commentator on it. The work opens with an invocation to
Visnu, Vyasa and Madhva, Sarasvati and the preceptors of the author. He repeats the well
known observation of Madhva that each of the thousand names is capable of a hundred
explanations. But he contents himself indicating as many explanations as can conveniently
be attempted at a time. His explanations are only illustrative, and not exhaustive. He leaves
it to the ingenuity of the learned to work out for themselves more explanations on the same
lines. Its important feature is that it brings together a variety of explanations of epithets of
the Lord lying scattered in the works of Madhva. He gives a dozen derivations of the first
holy name Visvam.

Vyasatirtha

Vyasatirtha is the earlier one than the one of the same name that flourished in the days
of the Vijayanagar period, and one of the Munitrayam of Madhva philosophy. The earlier
Vyasatirtha is the first Madhva regular commentator on the ten Upanisads in full, for the ten
Upanisad Bhashyas of Madhva were only partial commentaries on the originals. Madhva did
not give ‘word for word’ meaning of the passages. Vyasatirtha accomplishes this task while
commenting on the Bhashyas of Madhva. His commentaries on the Upanisads are considered
authentic expositions of the Dvaita School.

Vijayadhvajatirtha

Vijayadhvajatirtha is best known for his work Padaratnavali, a voluminous

commentary on Bhagavatapurana. It is the earliest, complete and standard commentary of
the Dvaita School on the Bhagavata. It is as luminous as it is voluminous. It is considered
one of the distinguished contributions of the Udipi Mutt to the Dvaita literature. It is a word
for word commentary on the entire Bhagavata.

Sudhindratirtha

Sudhindratirtha is known for his great contribution to kavya, alamkara and nataka
systems, besides Madhva theology and metaphysics. His works include commentaries on
Tarka Tandava, and Skandhas II and XI of the Bhagavata. His original works include
Alamkara-Manjari, Alamkara-Nikasa, Sahitya-Samrajya, Subhadra-Dhananjaya (drama),
Vyasarajabhyudaya (life of Vyasatirtha), Amrtaharana (drama), etc.

Vidyadhisatirtha

86
 Vidyadhisatirtha’s life is accounted in the Vidyadhisa-Vijaya of Janardana Suri. Ten
works are attributed to him, the most important being the gloss on the first five adhikaranas
of the Nyayasudha. It is a critical and scholarly exposition of the original. Vidyadhisatirtha
professes great respect for Vyasatirtha, and quotes often from his Candrika. He is very
knowledgeable in Mimamsa and grammatical subtleties.

Visvesvaratirtha

Visvesvaratirtha is the author of a commentary on the Aitareya Bhashya of Madhva.

He does not refer to any earlier commentaries on the Aitareya Bhashya. His style is quite
forceful, and his explanations are to the point.

Raghavendratirtha

Raghavendratirtha is one of the memorable saints of the Madhva Order. He is one of

the most influential commentators and authoritative exponents of the School of Madhvacarya.
To this day, his memory is loved and cherished with deep reverence by the followers of
Madhva to whichever Mutt they belong. The work Raghavendra Vijaya by Narayanacarya,
the nephew of Raghavendratirtha, gives a full and contemporary account of the life and
career of the later. The work Gurugunastava by Vadindra throws light on the contemporaries
of Raghavendratirtha in regard to literary activities. The works of Raghavendratirtha himself
carry considerable information on the writers of other schools. He seems to have spent the
major part of his life at Tanjore and Kumbhakonam, and moved, in the later part of his life, to
the village Mantralaya, on the bank of Tungabhadra, now in Kurnool district of Andhra
Pradesh, which he is stated to have received rent-free from an officer of the then Governor of
Adoni. The Raghavendraswami Mutt, Mantralaya assigns to him the period 1624-71.

Over 40 works have been attributed to Raghavendratirtha. Most of these are

commentaries on the works of Madhva, Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha. Thre are a few original
works and direct commentaries on the Upanisads. The general title of a majority of his works
is ‘Bhavadipa’. His works are remarkable for clarity of thought, simplicity of expression and
compactness. His commentaries are unassuming. He is a non-polemical commentator of the
Dvaita School. His output is voluminous.

His glosses on six out of the ten Prakaranas of Madhva, excluding the four already
commented upon by Vyasatirtha, elucidate the respective commentaries of Jayatirtha. There
are six works on the Sutraprasthana. One of them is Nyayamuktavali, a brief exposition of
the adhikaranasaras of the Brahmasutras. Another is Tantradipika, a learned vrtti on the
Sutras bringing together the explanations of earlier works, and commentaries like
Nyayasudha, Candrika, Tattvadipika, Nayacandrika and a few others. Another work is
Bhavadipa which refers to both the Tantradipika and the commentary on Candrika. The scope
of this work is both critical and expository. Another work is Prakasa, a commentary on the
Tatparyacandrika of Vyasatirtha. His Tattvamanjari is a detailed exposition of the
Anubhasya. It does not mention any earlier commentaries on the original. One of his most
popular and substantial commentaries on Nyayasudha is Nyayasudha-Parimala. This work
has conferred on him the epithet of Parimalacarya. His Mantramanjari is a commentary on
the first three Adhyayas of the Rigveda, the same portion covered by Madhva. He has
written commentaries on nine out of the ten Upanisads commented upon by Madhva,
excepting the Aitareya Upanisad. His commentaries on the Upanisads are evidently the
reactions from the Dvaita School to the Upanisad Vyakhyas of Rangaramanuja.

87
 There are three works of Raghavendratirtha on the Gita Prasthana, besides
Gitarthamanjari. His Gitarthasangraha, popularly known as Gita-Vivrta, is a lucid original
commentary. Its apt and convincing explanations are admired.

His other works include commentaries on the Pramana-Paddhati, Vadavali, Tarka

Tandava of Vyasatirtha, Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya, etc. His commentary on the entire
Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini, titled Bhattasamgraha, is complete and fascinating. It is the
most illuminating commentary on the original, diving deep into logical subtleties with
admirable ease and felicity. This work is based on a critical study of Sabarabhashya, the
works of Kumarila and others. This work gives a brief, clear and compact interpretation of
each of the Jaimini Sutras. It explains the details of each sutra such as their sangati, visaya,
doubt, purvapaksa-its arguments and vantage, and the siddhanta-its arguments and vantage.
Raghavendra’s handling of the subject is clear, precise and authentic. Besides, tradition
speaks of a few minor stotras of his, such as Ramamrutamanjari, Krsnacaritamanjari, and
Pratassamkalpagadya

Brahmanyatirtha and Others

Brahmanyatirtha, Sripadarajatirtha alias Lakshminarayanatirtha, Somanathakavitirtha,

Raghuttamatirtha, Yadupati Acaryatirtha and Kambala Ramacandratirtha are among the great
Madhva ascetics that have enriched Madhva thought and theology. There are several other
Heads (Pontiffs) of the Mutts originating from Madhva, contributing to the exposition of the
Madhva thought and theology, mostly in the nature of commentaries on the works of the
earlier Tirthas.

88
 12. Haridasakuta
Tradition regards that Naraharitirtha is the forerunner of the Vaisnava devotional
movement of the Haridasakuta in the area now called Karnataka, resulting from the Vaisnava
revival brought about by Madhva and his followers. The movement flourished for a couple
of centuries after Naraharitirtha, mainly across the whole of Karnataka. The Order of the
Dasas is a result of the spread of the realistic philosophy of Vedanta propounded by Madhva,
and it continues to flourish to date, mainly in rural Karnataka.

The Order of the Dasas has been composed of a regular band of saintly souls who
have dedicated themselves to the service of the Lord. Singing the praises of Hari, they have
wandered from one end of the country to the other. The saints of this Order have centered
their affection on Vithala of Pandharpur as their patron deity. There is reason to believe that
Karnataka held cultural sway over Pandharpur and its neighbourhood in the period of
Naraharitirtha, and in the following centuries. Even in the days of Jnaneswar, Vithala of
Pandharpur was still spoken of as ‘the deity beloved of the Kannadigas, enshrined in
Karnataka’.

The saints of Karnataka were thus the first to develop the cult of devotion to Vithala,
and made it a living faith and a powerful instrument of mass uplift through the medium of
soul-stirring music and bhajans in the language of the people. They have laid emphasis on
true devotion to God, and the relative unimportance of social caste barriers in spiritual
advancement.

The Dasas have exercised a powerful influence on the mass consciousness. They did
for the ordinary Kannadigas, women and the lower strata of society not acquainted with
Sanskrit, what the great scholars of the Vedanta had done for the higher strata of society.
Their compositions are in easy spoken language capturing the soul and imagination of the
people at large. They extol the virtues of jnana and bhakti, and give wholesome advice to
people in religion and ethics. By the power of padas, set to music in different ragas, they
have roused the conscience of the masses in devotion to the Lord. Each Dasa has a specific
mudrika.

Many Dasas are proficient in Sanskrit and in philosophical learning. They have put
the doctrines of Madhva in simple and easily intelligible people’s language. As ardent
followers of Madhva, the Dasas have tried to show how much more satisfying, intellectually
and emotionally, the system of Madhva is than other systems, particularly Samkara’s
Advaita. Though they have viewed the world as impermanent and full of misery and,
therefore, counseled bhakti and vairagya, they are zealous advocates of reform, and
denounced pseudo-religiosity. They have exhorted the people to be truthful in thought, word
and deed. They preach an austere form of devotion with no trace of erotic association. The
earlier Dasas such as Purandaradasa, Kanakadasa, Sripadarajadasa had preached the general
code of ethics and devotion applicable to all. But the later Dasas such as Vijayadasa and
Jagannathadasa wrote particularly for promotion of Madhva thesim. The following are
among the most well known Dasas.

89
 Naraharitirtha

Naraharitirtha is the earliest known Dasa, who has three songs to his credit. His
mudrika is ‘Narahari’ or ‘Narahari Raghupati‘. Tradition in Andhra Pradesh traces to him the
impetus given to the performance of Kuchipudi dances in temples.

Sripadaraja

His songs are very sublime, and blend rhythm and meaning. His sincerity and
passionate devotion are evident in his songs Bhramaragita, Venugita, Gopigita, etc. They
demonstrate musical excellence and literary grace. His mudrika is Ranga-Vitthala. His songs
carry personality element and are most touching. A true mystic, he analyses the defects and
mental agonies of man, and lays them bare, before the Lord, praying for light and vision,
impersonally, on behalf of the struggling souls.

Vyasatirtha

Vyasatirtha was the disciple of Sripadaraja, and is one of the Munitrayam of

Madhvaism. He rendered yomen service as Dasa. His mudrika is ‘Sri Krsna’ and its
variants. He gave to the Dasakuta Order the three greatest Dasas - Purandaradasa,
Kanakadasa and Vadirajadasa, who were all his disciples. His songs are marvelous for
musical effect, and he was the author of many Padas, Suladis, Ugabhogas, etc. (The Padas
are composed by a Dasa before and after Good-vision. Suladis are composed containing
doctrinal issues after a Dasa attains aporaksa - jnana. Ugabhogas are the out-pouring of his
experiences of ecstatic meditation.) Vyasatirtha is known for the catholicity of his outlook,
breadth of vision, and moral courage. His admission of Kanakadasa, belonging to the lower
strata in the caste structure of the then society, to the Order of Dasas was a great reform of
his time.

Purandara Dasa

Purandaradasa is the best known Dasa. His songs are full of music, alliteration and
harmony. They range from the most homely to the most sublime topics. He made several
improvements to the system of Karnatak music, and was one of its greatest exponents and
systematizers. He illustrated each raga with a song. He is credited with the authorship of
4,75,000 songs, may be words, each word being regarded as a bhagvannama, in the true
sense of namopasana and nadopasana.

The songs of Purandara Dasa are belived to include a large of number of Laksana-
Gitas none of which is now extant. They include Laksya-Gitas a few of which have been
handed down to posterity. Tulajendra, one of the scholarly rulers of Tanjavur, refers to
numerous Suladis of Purandaradasa, now extinct. He standardized Karnatak Music originally
shaped by his Gurus like Vyasatirtha and Sripadaraja. It is an established fact that Tyagaraja
(1767-1847) himself was greatly inspired by Purandaradasa. There is a close affinity in the
style and thought of the two.

Purandaradasa was not merely a Dasa, in the limited sense of the term. He was an
authority on music, and systematized the sangita-paddhati of his times. He introduced
malavagaula scale as the basis of musical instruction.

90
 Kanakadasa

Kanakadasa was a contemporary of Purandaradasa. He is believed to have been a

shepherd or Kuruba by caste, and a chieftain. He calls himself an unlettered man, but his
works reveal a perfect mastery of Sanskrit and Kannada languages. He styles himself
Kanakadasottama. He is a free-thinker. In his opinion, caste and creed are no barriers to
moksa. Though he was persecuted for his extreme views by the orthodox followers of
Vyasatirtha, Vyasatirtha revealed the greatness and devotion of Kanakadasa to his other
disciples. Even to this day, Kanakana Khindi (Kanaka’s window) at the temple of Sri Krsna
at Udipi bears testimony to his devotion to God. As a Dasa, he took taptamudrankana. His
main works include Mohanatarangini, a metrical kavya, Haribhaktasara, Ramadhyana Carite,
and Nala Carite. His works reveal his inimitable perfection of art.

Vadiraja

He was a Dasa of outstanding merit. His works include Ramagadya,

Vainkunthavarnane and Laksmisobhanehadu. His mudrika is Hayavadana. There are a
number of songs of other Dasas stating his having been a disciple of Vyasatirtha.

Vijayadasa

Vijayadasa is considered to have been a disciple of Purandaradasa, but there is a gap

of about 150 years between them. His mudrika is Vijaya-Vithala. His works reveal his
thorough grasp of the Sastras.

Jagannathadasa

Jagannathadasa is said to have been miraculously converted to the Order of the

Dasakuta, after a cruel illness, by Vijayadasa, his guru. Jagannathadasa is known for his
scholarship in Sanskrit. A very enthusiastic follower of the Madhva philosophy, his works
teem with details of bhakti, mukti, taratamya, aparoksa-jnana, etc. His magnum opus is
Harikathamrtasara, a mine of information on Madhva theology.

The Dasakuta is, to this day, a living force in Karnataka. Many Dasas are keeping up
the hoary traditions of their Order. The Dasakuta in Karnataka has been a great force in the
bhakti movement of the common people across the State.

Caitanya

Caitanya is one of the foremost saint-devotees from Bengal. According to the

Vaisnava traditions of Bengal, the religion of Caitanya is an offshoot of the Madhva faith.
Caitanya had his ordination as a monk from Kesava Bharathi, an advaitin, but is said to have
inherited his ‘Vaisnava Diksa’ from Isvara Puri who is said to have belonged to the ‘Order of
Bhaktas’ founded by Vayasatirtha. Baladeva Vidyabhushana, a follower of Caitanya, of the
18th century, expressly states in his works that Caitanya belongs to the Madhva-Sampradaya.

91