Tattva-viveka
Acintya-bhedabheda vs. Advaita vedanta
Citta Hari Dasa - April 14, 2005 10:54 pm
I'll give a try at playing the purvapaksin, though Guru Maharaja would do a much better job of it I'm sure. At any rate, our purvapaksin says:
All is Brahman; nothing else exists. Our sense of separate identity is born of ignorance, and once that ignorance is removed we will see clearly that we are Brahman as well, just as the air inside of a pot and out side of a pot are one, while the temporary division of the pot is like our temporary material identity. How do you respond?
BTW, material for arguing this can be found in Guru Maharaja's Tattva-sandarbha as well as Rasa.
Jason - April 14, 2005 11:28 pm
Here's how I would respond:
So, if Brahman is the topmost conception of God; the Supreme "state", and by your (their) deductions we are each Brahman covered over by maya, which is all that's inhibiting us from realizing that we are actually God, then by deductive reasoning they imply that maya is greater than God. Why? Because it has the power to cloud our (God's) knowledge of itself (not Himself, b/c there's no concept of personhood).
Jason
Jason - April 14, 2005 11:35 pm
"All is Brahman; nothing else exists. Our seperate sense of identity is born of ignorance."
That in itself would be a contradiction, right? It implies that ignorance is also Brahman?! Does that mean that ignorance is Brahman, or Brahman is ignorance?
The fact that we even have a sense of identity as humans, is indicative that there is some "ideal" or utmost conception of identity that we're trying to find/strive for in the material world. Where does that ideal manifest from?
Jason
Gauravani Dasa - April 14, 2005 11:53 pm
If we are Brahman, then how do we become covered by ignorance? Your statement posits that the Supreme Absolute Truth comes under the influence of ignorance.
tad aiksata bahu syam: "Brahman glanced and willed to become many (and thus we exist)." (Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.3)
Brahman is nondual but also has innumerable saktis that rest upon It. Those saktis are not different from Brahman in the sense that their existence is fully dependent upon It. Those unlimited energies include jiva-sakti and maya-sakti.
Our marginal nature of existence allows us to come under the influence of maya-sakti, while the nature of the Supreme Brahman Himself is such that he is never touched by maya.
Citta Hari Dasa - April 15, 2005 5:11 pm
So, if Brahman is the topmost conception of God; the Supreme "state", and by your (their) deductions we are each Brahman covered over by maya, which is all that's inhibiting us from realizing that we are actually God, then by deductive reasoning they imply that maya is greater than God. Why? Because it has the power to cloud our (God's) knowledge of itself (not Himself, b/c there's no concept of personhood).
You must understand that Brahman is the only reality, while the world is false--brahma satyam, jagan mithya. Maya, (and thus the jiva, the world, etc.) only appear to be real from the vyavaharika (worldy) point of view. But from the paramarthika (esoteric) point of view Brahman is the only reality, and is nirguna--without qualities or attributes. Maya is just a false projection (adhyasa) upon Brahman.
"All is Brahman; nothing else exists. Our seperate sense of identity is born of ignorance."
That in itself would be a contradiction, right? It implies that ignorance is also Brahman?! Does that mean that ignorance is Brahman, or Brahman is ignorance?
The fact that we even have a sense of identity as humans, is indicative that there is some "ideal" or utmost conception of identity that we're trying to find/strive for in the material world. Where does that ideal manifest from?
I've answered your first point above. RE: where the ideal we as humans strive toward arises from, it's simple: from our mistaken conception that we are an individuated entity who has to strive to be anything other than what we already are!
If we are Brahman, then how do we become covered by ignorance? Your statement posits that the Supreme Absolute Truth comes under the influence of ignorance.
tad aiksata bahu syam: "Brahman glanced and willed to become many (and thus we exist)." (Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.3)
Brahman is nondual but also has innumerable saktis that rest upon It. Those saktis are not different from Brahman in the sense that their existence is fully dependent upon It. Those unlimited energies include jiva-sakti and maya-sakti.
Our marginal nature of existence allows us to come under the influence of maya-sakti, while the nature of the Supreme Brahman Himself is such that he is never touched by maya.
Your quote from the Chandogya Upanisad obviously refers to Saguna Brahman.
What is your evidence that Brahman has sakti? Can you give me references from the Sruti?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 15, 2005 7:20 pm
Citta Hari, I feel that you are starting a lesson with the exam. Can we have some background information first?
Shyam Gopal Das - April 15, 2005 7:21 pm
you say that the air within the pot is the same as outside of it. Thus, that which exists inside the pot must also exist outside of the pot. If this is the case, then our seperate identities as living beings exist in reality too (outside of the pot). So to say we are all one forgoes the fact that air consists of particles. By removing the covering, our identities won't be blown away.
That which exists in a dreamlike state has its foundation in reality.
and btw if you are really conviced that we are one, then you probably won't have any problems with sending me your wallet. Thanks.
Gauravani Dasa - April 15, 2005 9:40 pm
Your quote from the Chandogya Upanisad obviously refers to Saguna Brahman.
Srila Vyasadeva explains in Vedanta-sutra 1.1.6, that the use of the word atma throughout the Vedas in describing Brahman does not refer to Saguna Brahman.
Besides, why would the Vedas ask us to meditate upon Saguna Brahman to acheive moksa? There is only one kind of Brahman, as Vyasadeva states in Vedanta-sutra 1.1.10.
What is your evidence that Brahman has sakti? Can you give me references from the Sruti?
What is your sruti reference that Brahman does not have sakti?!?
The nature of sruti is such that it requires clarification by srmti. In this current age of Kali, neither of us are qualified to study the sruti. With your permission I will quote the smrti:
parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate
svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca
"The Supreme Lord has multi-potencies which act so perfectly that all consciousness, strength and activity are being directed solely by His will." (Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.8)
In addition, Sri Bhagavan explains throughout Bhagavad-gita (7.4-6, 9.10) that multiple energies are emanating from Him, while at the same time He Himself remains aloof.
Swami - April 16, 2005 1:23 am
sarvam khalv idam brahma, "Everything is Brahman." So there are a number of things out there, not just one. 
If "All is Brahman," and our sense of individuality is ignorance. . . wait a minute now. 
Swami - April 16, 2005 1:27 am
What is your evidence that Brahman has sakti? Can you give me references from the Sruti?
What is your sruti reference that Brahman does not have sakti?!?
The nature of sruti is such that it requires clarification by srmti. In this current age of Kali, neither of us are qualified to study the sruti. With your permission I will quote the smrti:
parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate
svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca
"The Supreme Lord has multi-potencies which act so perfectly that all consciousness, strength and activity are being directed solely by His will." (Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.8)
This is a quote from sruti, the Upanisads are sruti. Still it is correct to say that we do need the smriti to fully understand sruti in this age. The Puranas are the 5th Veda. Also, it is good to put the opponent on the defensive, as you have. Very good.
Gauravani Dasa - April 16, 2005 12:29 pm
This is a quote from sruti, the Upanisads are sruti.
Oops! I misunderstood what sruti was; I thought it was just the Vedas. I guess some accept more as sruti than others anyways.
Is the definition of sruti and smriti correct on these pages?
Bhrigu - April 16, 2005 5:20 pm
The orthodox understanding of shruti is that it consists of four Vedas (Rig, Yajur, Sama & Atharva), each having four parts:
1) Samhita (the hymns, the part often referred to as "the Vedas")
2) Brahmana (prose texts dealing with the sacrifice, etc)
3) Aranyaka (prose texts giving more esoteric insights into the sacrifice)
4) Upanishad (prose/ verse texts dealing with e.g. the self, atman)
E.g. the Chandogya Upanishad is part of the Yajur Veda.
Citta Hari Dasa - April 16, 2005 6:22 pm
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Sankara's Vedanta-sutra Bhasya, so I can't give their arguments to the verses Fred quoted. So it appears at this point that the purvapaksin is defeated. Gaudiya Vedanta ki jaya!
There are a number of points we didn't get into though, and it might be good to cover them. In pursuance of this I will, as Nanda-tanuja suggested, give some background information.
There is a good section on acintya-bhedabheda and Sankara's advaita vedanta in Dr. Kapoor's book The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya. I'll post it in sections.
Dr. Kapoor writes:
"Sankara's philosophy, usually known as Kevaladvaita, is summed up in the trite phrase brahma satyam jagan mithya, which means that Brahman is real and the world in an illusion. Brahman is advaya, one without a second; nothing at all exists besides Brahman, whether inside it, as its part or attribute, or outside it. It is a pure unity, absolutely homogenous in nature, (kutastha); it is pure existence and pure consciousness. Consciousness or thought is not its attribut, it is thought or intelligence itself (jnana-svarupa).
But, if nothing else exists, whence the appearance of the physical world and the individual beings like ourselves? To answer this question, Sankara introduces in his philosophy the theory of maya and the distinction between the esoteric (paramarthika) and exoteric (vyavaharika) points of view. Brahman is without any attributes (nirguna) from the esoteric or transcendental point of view, but from the exoteric or worldly point of view, it is qualified (saguna) and possesses the magical creative power called maya. The Saguna Brahman or Isvara conjures up the world-show through his magical power, just as the magician produces illusory appearances of physical objects and living beings by his incomprehensible magical power. Maya is thus the material cause (upadana karana) of the world.
Thibaut thus describes the evolution of the world from maya and the illusory nature of its manifold objects: 'Maya, under the guidance of the Lord, modifies itself by a progressive evolution into all the individual existences distinguished by special names and forms, of which the world consists; from it there spring in due succession the differenct material elements and the whole bodily apparatus belonging to sentiant beings. In all these apparently individual forms of existence the one individual Brahman is present, but owing to the particular adjuncts into which maya has specialized itself, it appears to be broken up, as it were, into a multiplicity of intellectual or sentiant principles, the so-called jivas (individual or personal souls). What is real in each jiva is only th euniversal Brahman itslef; the whole aggregate of individualising bodily organs and mental functions, which , in our ordinary experience separate and distinguish one jiva from another, is the offspring of maya and as such unreal.' "
Citta Hari Dasa - April 17, 2005 5:54 pm
Part 2
"Sankara's doctrine is called Vivartavada as against the doctrine of Parinamavada. According to Parinamavada, Brahman is the materaial cause of the world, while according to Vivartavada, the world is a superimposition upon brahman, due to ajnana or ignorance. According to Vivartavada, Brahman does not undergo any change in creation, as the world-appearance is merely a projection (adhyasa). But according to Parinamavada, Brahman undergoes real change.
Maya is not real, because Brahman is the only thing real; it is not unreal, because it produces the world appearance. It is both real (sat) and unreal (asat). It is indeterminate indescribable (anirvacaniya). It is beginningless (anadi) but not endless (ananta), since it is cancelled in deliverance or mukti.
As regards the problem of the relation between Brahman and the world, it is supposed that it simply does not arise, sinice Brahman is real and th eworld, including the individual souls, is unreal.
Sri Jiva has levelled a number of charges against Advaitavada, some of which are as follows:
What, he asks, is the support (asraya) of ajnana, which causes th eillusion of th eworld? The jiva cannot be the support because it is itself the product of ajnana. There is nothing else that can be its support except Brahman. But, if Brahman is the support, what happens to its purity and its essential nature as jnana (jnanasvarupa)?
In an illusory experience, the illusion is due to projection or superimposition. Superimposition invilves separate existence of the object superimposed, its past experience, the present revival in the mind of the image of the past experience, and the consciousness of identity between the image and the object now actually experienced. The world-illusion, therefore, presupposes, besides the existence of Brahman, the actual existence of a world, whose image is projected onto it.
I may be argued that the actual existence of a world and it spast experience is not necessary for projection, because each successive illusion of the world may be due to a previous illusion. This is illogical. The cause which produces an effect cannot itself be caused by the same effect. The position does not improve even if this chain o fone illusion causing another is regarded as timeless which is clear from Sankara's own reasoning in another connection.
In fact, no illusion of any kind is possible in Brahman, It is clear from the example of illusion of silver in a conch, that the illusion is due to the quality of whiteness in the conch, which is similar to the quality of whiteness in silver. Therefore, in the case of the world-illusioon, or an other illusion projected on Brahman, it is necessary that there should be some quality in Brahman which bears similarity to the quality of the illusory image projected on it. But Brahman is nirguna and does not possess any quality."
Gauravani Dasa - April 20, 2005 11:40 am
In an illusory experience, the illusion is due to projection or superimposition. Superimposition invilves separate existence of the object superimposed, its past experience, the present revival in the mind of the image of the past experience, and the consciousness of identity between the image and the object now actually experienced. The world-illusion, therefore, presupposes, besides the existence of Brahman, the actual existence of a world, whose image is projected onto it.
Is Sri Jiva Goswami basing this statement on a particular scriptual reference? I think it is a very good argument.
Gauravani Dasa - April 20, 2005 12:16 pm
I was reading Guru Maharaja's Gita commenatary on verse 12.1 this morning and I wanted to share it with everyone because it also adresses Sankara's arguments:
Sankara reasons that Brahman is a superior expression of the Absolute. If there is any superiority to the form of Krsna, Sankara attributes it to the idea that this form facilitates liberation for those unable to meditate without conceptualization.
...
Sankara's argument is the lens through which he looks at all the scriptural references glorifying the form of God and devotion to it. It appears first in his highly interpretive explanation of Vedanta-sutra 1.1.17. (p. 396-7)
Guru Maharaja mentions that the discussion at this point in the Vedanta-sutra began with 1.1.12 (anandamayo 'bhasat: "Brahman is joyful") and develops the point that Brahman and jiva are different:
Even Sankara himself admits that sutras 1.1.16-1.1.17 concern the difference between Brahman and the individual soul. However, Sankara adds his own comment, declaring that the difference only exists on a lower level of reality (vyavaharic), whereas in ultimate reality (paramarthic) this illusion of difference ceases to exist. However, nowhere in Vedanta-sutra is there any reference to Sankara's two levels of reality and thus two levels of Brahman--a provisional manifestation of the Absolute (Krsna/the avatara/isvara) and an ultimate reality (unmanifest, indeterminate Brahman). (p. 397)
I have a small book with Sankara's commentary on Vedanta-sutra up to 1.2.1. Here is an excerpt from that book:
1.1.16: netaro 'nupapattehThe "itara" or "the other" refers to Jiva. The Jiva is not anandamaya of the Taitt. Up. as the qualities of anandamaya mentioned therein do not fit in with the Jiva.
1.1.17: bheda-vyapadesac ca
The anandamaya cannot be the Jiva, for in the Taitt. Up. itself the Jiva and the anandamaya are distinctly represented as different. "The Anandamaya is a flavour, for only after perceiving a flavour can this (Jiva) perceive bliss" (Taitt. Up. II. 7). Here Jiva is the experiencer, while Anandamaya is the object experienced--and the perceiver cannot be that which is perceived.
From the transcendental point the difference however is fictitous.
I think it is funny that Sankara is commenting on Vedanta-sutra but makes a statement like "[but] From the transcendental point [of view]..." 
Sankara's explaination of 1.1.18 in this book is difficult to understand, but I think it may be his arguments about paramarthic and vyavaharic reality. I can post it tomorrow.
Guru Maharaja goes on to explain:
Thus Sankara appears to have attached his own doctrine to the sutras. In this doctrine he calls his provisional manifestation of Brahman "saguna Brahman," Brahman with material adjuncts. The form of Krsna as sunga Brahman is thus considered a manifestation of Brahman constituted of the material quality of sattva that serves the purpose of helping individual souls realize the illusion of their individuality, at which time the form and person of the avatara is dispensed with as the enlightened realizes himself to be Brahman.
According to Sankara, those not qualified to meditate on aksara Brahman should worship his idea of saguna Brahman to gradually qualify themselves for meditation on the formless Brahman. This idea has no basis in the sutras, nor does it find any support in the Gita. (p. 397)
Audarya-lila Dasa - April 22, 2005 12:37 am
I have never studied any of Shankara's writings, and admittedly, what little I know of Adwaita Vedanta I know through the pen of Gaudiya Acharyas. This is so for several reasons, for me at least.
The first reason is that I am not attracted by the overall idea and my own inner intuition and heart have always resonated with a personal God with form and attributes. Even though I accept and embrace the abheda side of the equation in our theology, I would not do so in a theology where the bheda side was absent.
The second reason is that I still have a genuine concern in my mind and heart about delving into Adwaita teachings. The warnings given to us by Svarupa Damodara through the pen of Krsna dasa Kaviraja are strong enough that even if I was curious I would not make a genuine study of the subject. I mean if a Maha Bhagavata devotee of the Lord could fall from grace by hearing such, what is my position?
In reading through some of the first few adikaranas of the Vedanta Sutra with Baladeva Vidyabushana's commentary I found it interesting to note that the purvapaksa (antithesis) or opposing argument to the idea that God and Jiva are distinct was that this knowledge was obvious and universal and therefore could not be the meaing of the sutra in question, but rather that non-distinction was indicated and constituted an unobvious and unique revelation. (I'm butchering the argument here a bit - but the overall idea is being conveyed correctly, I think)
This argument was refuted by citing several slokas from sruti showing distinction and by also putting forward the fact that the differences and similarities between God and Jiva as revealed by sruti are not at all obvious or common knowledge.
The system of argumentation and logic used to establish a point and how the sutras themselves are constructed and follow certain rules may be useful to explore on this thread. I could post some of the introduction to the Vedanta Sutra from my edition if anyone is interested. The introduction explains how the book is constructed and the logical tools used to establish a particular point of view or interpretation are explained.
Anyway, from my very limited exposure to Vedanta I would say that I would need significantly more training and understanding to argue with someone who is an expert in Vedanta and has mastered the arguments of Sankara in his commentary on the sutras. I believe Madhusudhana Saraswati was considered a great logician and he wrote some very extensive refutations to Madhvacharya's attacks on Adwaita Vedanta. Needless to say - there are many learned transcendentalists who follow Adwaita Vedanta and they do so with good backing from logic, reason and argument.
From what I have seen those who are learned in Adwaita Vedanta deride what Krsna dasa Kaviraja has written regarding Mahaprabhu's conversion of the 'mayavadis'. This is so because there is not much logic or detailed reasoning in the passages. I have always been of the opinion that Mahaprabhu 'defeated' these people through touching their hearts and not by logic, reason and argument. That's not to say that he couldn't have defeated them in debating the sastra - it just that Mahaprabhu seems to have inspired so many beings by his mere presence or touch. Tattvavadis are famous for their verbosity, yet his conversion of the tattvavadis happens so quickly - how else could this have happened?
Of course, we are not in the position to affect others in the same manner but I believe that our Guru Maharaja is setting a clear standard in how to interact with compassion and dignity such that the method of presentation has as much, if not more impact at times, than the content of the message. People are indeed touched by love and affection and gentle, compassionate dealings. When these are evident in the way our theology is presented it has an incredible impact.
I think that this method of presentation is preparing the soil of the readers hearts so that the seed of devotional Vedanta will take root and flourish.
Jason - April 22, 2005 4:24 am
Does this Advaitin philosophy pertain to what Lord Buddha taught, or is it different? I'm somtimes confused as to why devotees equate atheism with impersonalistic theology? When studying Buddhism in my Religion class, our professor stressed that often times people call Buddhism, atheism, when it's not really so.
We're being taught that the Buddha was anti-metaphysics and pro-experiential in his approach to understanding spirituality. I've been told that Buddha didn't actually speak of nirvana too much because he/the philosophy wasn't about asking "why", rather, it's about dealing with the present moment.
The Buddha often gave the example of blowing out a candle to explain what happens at the time of death. Our professor suggests that he was teaching, "...when the light goes out here, it goes on somewhere else."
The professor mentioned the word "apophatic" and I don't know that I understood that, but he used it to imply that the Buddhist philosophy isn't necessarily atheistic.
This philosophy suggests that traditions lead to mindlessness (yet, don't they have their traditions)?
The example is given that all persons are born with an arrow in their sides. The proper course of action is not to say, "Why do I have an arrow in my side", "How did it get here", "What is the nature of the arrow". Buddhists suggest that the only concern should be the immediate....getting the arrow out! This is why they don't stress metaphysics.
Is it possible that they don't reject the possibility of a personal God, rather, they just don't see the immediate importance of focusing on that? Then is it actually "atheism"?
confused....
Jason
Gauravani Dasa - April 22, 2005 12:46 pm
I appreciate your post Audarya-lila Prabhu. I should be careful about how much I dive into studying the impersonal argument. I like to try to understand philosophy in detail but I should be a little more cautious about how I go about it.
The system of argumentation and logic used to establish a point and how the sutras themselves are constructed and follow certain rules may be useful to explore on this thread. I could post some of the introduction to the Vedanta Sutra from my edition if anyone is interested. The introduction explains how the book is constructed and the logical tools used to establish a particular point of view or interpretation are explained.
I think this would be great!
Bhrigu - April 22, 2005 1:05 pm
Does this Advaitin philosophy pertain to what Lord Buddha taught, or is it different?
I'm myself right now teaching a course on Buddhism, so I thought that I should add my two-pence. No, the Buddha's teachings are quite different from Advaita Vedanta. There are some similarities -- Shankara's paramaguru seems to have been quite influenced by Buddhist philosophy -- but there are even more important diffences. For example, all Vedanta is based on the notion of an eternal atman or conscious self, a notion that the Buddha rejected. For him, there is no actual basis to our ego.
Buddhists suggest that the only concern should be the immediate....getting the arrow out! This is why they don't stress metaphysics.
As I'm sure your teacher will demonstrate as he goes on with the history of Buddhism, this is not true at all. Yes, the Buddha was not interested in metaphysics, but later Buddhist philosophers were very much so. As for atheism, the same thing applies. The Buddha would not answer the question whether or not there are any gods, but almost all modern Buddhists worship the Buddha, other Buddhas, Bodhisattvas etc just like gods.
As for the Vedantic system of presenting a topic (visaya, samsaya, etc), I tried to follow it in the guru-tattva thread. Still, it would be nice if Audarya-lila Prabhu could post something from the Vedanta sutras themselves.
Jason - May 16, 2005 1:29 am
I need some help!
I'm working on a term paper for my philosophy of religion class and I've chosen to do an overview of the prevalent schools of thought in Indian theology. Similar to the way Narasingha Swami wrote "Evolution of Theism". I need to be a little more descript though.
I've taken a lot of notes of Buddha, Sankaracharya, Ramanuja and Madhava and the different concepts that they, "brought to the table". Still, I'm having trouble grasping just what their schools propose. In some of the books that I am referencing, the dialogue is over my head.
In a nutshell (just a few sentences each), could you all be so kind as to recap what each personality taught? It would help me tremendously. Just a short summary of what had been discussed on this thread.
I have (I think) successfully completed the 5 pages on Sri Caitanyas contribution (emphasis on bhakti, acintya-bhedabeda, harinam sankirtana as yuga-dharma, etc.)
Thanks in advance,
Jason.
Jason - May 17, 2005 12:34 am
Madhavacarya expounded on Ramanujas idea of the 3 realities: God, soul and matter
He implied that the jiva has an eternal relationship with the Supreme, but that relationship is the same for every jiva.....is this in fact what he taught?
Is that one of the differences b/t Madhava and Caitanya Mahaprabhu?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - May 17, 2005 3:11 am
Madhva believed in the innate difference of one soul from another. He believed in a hierarchy of jivas, based upon their innate configurations of virtues (gunas) and faults (dosas). For example, Visnu is supreme because He possesses all qualities in their most fulfilled and perfect form. Furthermore, because Madhva believed that souls possess innate characteristics and capacities, he also maintained that they were predestined to achieve certain ends. This perspective put Madhva at odds with traditional Hindu views of the karma theory wherein differences in social and religious status are explained via past moral or immoral acts. For Madhva, each individual being possesses an innate moral propensity and karma is merely the mechanism by which a given soul is propelled towards his or her destiny. His philosophy is unique in teaching that not all souls will attain liberation, but that some will suffer eternal damnation. Even after liberation souls are graded in respect of their perfection.
Bhrigu - May 17, 2005 6:46 am
Madhavacarya expounded on Ramanujas idea of the 3 realities: God, soul and matter.
Actually, Ramanuja did not stress prakriti (matter). Madhva (not Madhava) did so, claiming a separate ontological reality for it, so that Vishnu is not the material cause of creation. Madhva's and Ramanuja's philosophies are quite different. Ramanuja's present day followers often think that Madhvas aren't vedantists at all, while Madhvas sometimes call Ramanujas Vaishnavaasuras -- "Vaishnava demons"...
He implied that the jiva has an eternal relationship with the Supreme, but that relationship is the same for every jiva.....is this in fact what he taught?
As Nandatanuja already pointed out, this is exactly what he didn't teach. Taratamya (gradation or hierarchy) is an extremely important concept both in Madhva philosophy and theology.
Jason - May 17, 2005 3:54 pm
OK, so the books that I've been referencing are COMPLETELY inaccurate!
Now I'm completely messed up.
Are Madhava and Madhva two different personalities, or is it a spelling mistake. The books that I've been using as sources refer to Ramanuja and Madhava?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - May 17, 2005 4:56 pm
It's just different spelling. Sometimes it can be Shri Madhavacharya or Madhwacharya as well.
Swami - May 17, 2005 4:58 pm
This brings up the possiblity of an interesting and edifying discussion as to the difference between Madhva's philosophy and Mahaprabhu's. Is there a difference? We say we are Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Vainsavas, and sastra says that there are only four sampradayas, Brahma, Rudra, Sri, and Kumara. So if we are in the Brahma sampradaya, as is Madhva who came before Mahaprabhu, shouldn't our siddhanta be the same as Madhva's?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - May 17, 2005 10:37 pm
I’ve found this article many years ago somewhere on the net and would like to share it with you to start a conversation. It’s a summary of Madhva’s teachings. Not many people had been exposed to dvaita – tattvavada, so I hope reading this article will give you some feel of what it is and maybe some ideas on what is the difference between Madhva's and Mahaprabhu's philosophy.
Dvaita of Madhvacarya
Introduction:
vede ramayane caiva purane bharate tatha
adavante ca madhye ca visnu sarvatra giyate
(Harivamsa)
In the Vedas, Ramayana, Puranas and the Mahabharata, from the beginning till end, and also in the middle, Visnu is glorified everywhere.
Sripada Madhvacarya's philosophy is known as Dvaita. While strongly establishing the status of Visnu as Supreme Being, he emphasizes that there are two categories of realities:
svatantram asvatantram ca prameyam dvividham matam
(Tattva viveka 1)
The aim of philosophy, he says, to realize the distinction or difference between the Independent Reality (The Supreme Lord) and dependent realities (jivas, world etc). There is order, regulation, mutual adjustment and harmony in creation. This shows that there is no unrestricted independence to all to act as they please. The realities that constitute this existence are dependent on the Independent Reality, the Supreme Lord, Vasudeva who explains, controls and inter-relates the dependent realities into this existence.
Doctrine of Difference:
It shows that matter, souls and God constitute the three major realities of Madhva's system. The number of souls is unlimited and the modifications of matter are numerous, in various states. These three are conceived as distinct entities. The reality of God is of the independent grade. That of the rest is dependent. Between matter and souls, the former is of a lesser grade of reality. The reality of things in space and time involves the differences in name, form, attributes, relations, and tendencies. He has given a scheme of "five-fold difference" ('Pancabheda').
jivesvarabhida caiva jadesvarabhida tatha
jivabhedo mithascaiva jadajivabhida tatha
mithasca jadabhedo'yam prapanco bhedapancaka:
(Visnutattva nirnaya)
(1) the distinction between Isvara and jiva
(2) the distinction between Isvara and jada (prakrti)
(3) the distinction among the jivas
(4) the distinction between the jiva and the jada
(5) the distinction among the jadas i.e, distinction between one inanimate object and another.
This fivefold difference is collectively spoken of by Madhva as "Pra-panca". It is real and eternal.
paramesvarena jnatatvat raksitatvatca
na dvaitam bhrantikalpitam
nahisvarasya bhranti:
(Visnutattva nirnaya)
This scheme of pancabheda is not illusory - as it is cognized, maintained and controlled by the Supreme Lord; for there can be no illusions for God.
Scriptures:
Sripada Madhvacarya quotes profusely from an exceptionally wide range of Vedic literatures like the Mantras, Brahmanas, Khilas, Aranyakas, Upanisads, Itihasas, Puranas, Pancaratras and the Smrtis. He has drawn to the largest extent upon the Rg Veda. He refuses to give a secondary place to the Vedas as apara vidya - dealing only with karma and demigods without any philosophical content. He treats the ocean of Vedic literatures as an integral legacy (samanvayatva) and not as fractional revelations of truth and religion. He covers the entire range of the sastras and establishes the running unity (gatisamanya) in establishing the dependency of everything on Vasudeva.
Brahman:
sarvatrakhilasacchakti: svatantro'sesadarsana:
nityatadrsacicetyanta istho no ramapati
(tattvodyota)
The Lord of Ramaa is the Supreme Independent Person possessing all adequate and unrestricted energies in regard to the cit and acit and He is unlimitedly cognizant. By His own will, He is the Supreme controller of both cit and acit who are of a different nature from His.
All the Upanisads without exception glorify Hari who is the abode of infinite qualities as free from all imperfections:
(1) gunavisistha - Full of qualities like omniscience etc, lordship, beauty, transcendence etc.
(2) dosa abhava visistha - free from limitations as sin, misery, liability to physical embodiment etc.
(3) vangmanasa gocara - beyond the reach of mind and speech, transcendental.
(4) a-dvitiya - One without a second, to be sought to the exclusion of everything else.
(5) sarvartaka - the Supreme self, source of all existence, consciousness and activity of all else in the creation.
prakrtyadipravartakatvena taduttamatvat, naiva rupavat brahma
(Brahma-sutra Bhasya) III - 2 - 14
Because He is transcendental to material nature and is the controller of all that be, He is described as formless.
He is the source of all:
svabhava jiva karmani dravya kala sruti kriya
yat prasadad ime santi na santi yad upeksaya
iti sruterna sattadya'pi narayanam vina
tat patanjali vindhyadi matam a purusartadam
(Anu vyakhyana)
The nature, jivas, their karmas, ingredients, time, Vedas, interactions all these exist, function and are cognized only by Narayana's will and pleasure. They cannot exist without Him. Thus it is explained in the Srutis that everything depends on His control. So the philosophy of Patanjali and Vidhya etc., are not conducive for spiritual advancement.
Jiva:
ahamityeva yo vedhya: sa jiva iti kirtita
sa dukhi sa sukhi caiva sa patram bandha moksayo
(Visnu tattva nirnaya)
He who undergoes happiness and misery, who is eligible for bondage and release, is the jiva. He knows himself as 'I am' in all his states.
Souls are conceived in Madhva's system as finite centers of conscious experience, each with a unique essence of its own. The essence of individuality is that one finite centre of experience cannot possess, "as its own immediate" experience, the experience of another. It is this non-transferable immediacy of experience that distinguishes one self from another, in spite of their possessing certain similar characteristics. Each has a specific content of consciousness, reality and bliss and constitutes a focalization which is nowhere exactly repeated in nature. The nature of the souls is to be one of unalloyed bliss and pure intelligence. It is essentially free from any kind of misery or pain; though subjected to a natural gradation of intelligence and bliss in cosmic hierarchy of selves and subject always to the Supreme, in bondage "and in release". The sense of misery, which is bondage, is external to their essence and is brought about by a "real" though "misplaced sense of independence of initiative and conduct"
The jivas are reflected counterparts ('pratibimbamsa') of Brahman (Visnu). The bodies of the jivas, eternally present in Vaikuntha, the celestial abode of Visnu, are transcendental ('aprakrta'). Hence, they are called unconditioned-reflected-counterparts ('nirupadhika-pratibimbamsa') of Visnu. The bodies of the jivas of the material world are matierial; therefore, they are called conditioned-reflected-counterparts ('sopadhika-pratibimbamsa') of Visnu.
(i) Plurality of Souls:- Madhva holds the doctrine of multiplicity of selves. He establishes that there are intrinsic or essential differences in the nature of the jivas (svarupabheda). The uniqueness of each individual experience, which forms the content of personality, is sufficient reason, according to Madhva, for the acceptance of 'jiva-bahutva-vada' plurality of souls) and the distinctiveness of each individual.
(ii) Gradation of souls:- Madhva's doctrine of the Soul insists not only upon the distinctiveness of each soul but also upon an intrinsic gradation among them based on varying degrees of knowledge, power, and bliss. This is known as 'Taratamya' or 'Svaru pataratamya', which comes out all the more clearly in the released state, where the souls realize their true status.
According to Svarupataratamya, the unreleased souls are divided into three grades (Trividhya):
(1) 'Muktiyogya' (salvable),
(2) 'Nitya-samsarin' (ever-transmigrating)
(3) 'Tamoyogya' (damnable)
Sri Madhva also speaks about the intrinsic differences existing among the "released" souls. Hiranyagarbha among the released (and in Samsara too) occupies a privileged position as jivottama. He accepts innate distinction among (released) souls into Deva, Rsi (Pitr, Pa) and Naras. The Devas are 'Sarva-prakasa'(fit to realize God as all pervasive), the Sages are 'Antahprakasa' (fit to realise God within) and the rest 'Bahihprakasa'.
Madhva and his commentators have cited many texts from the Vedic literature (from Gita16.3, 5, 6, 18, 20; 8.3; Bhag. 6.14.5; Isa. Up 3 etc.), in support of the acceptance of the Traividhya among jivas who are entangled within the samsara. An intrinsic divergence of nature and faith into 'Sattvika', 'Rajasa' and 'Tamasa' which is rooted in the core of individual nature (dehinam svabhavaja) as stated in the Gita, is the ultimate basis of this theory according to Madhva. This theory is developed from the doctrine of Trividha-Sraddha in the Gita. The term Sattvika, Rajasa, and Tamasa are applied to the jivas in their tripartite classification, according to Madhva, with reference to their basic nature of Caitanya going beyond the play of prakrti and its gunas: "yo yac chraddhah sa eva sah" (Gita 17.3). This is clear from Madhva's comment on the above verse, where he interprets the term "sattvanurupa" as "cittanurupa".
(iii) Self-luminosity of souls: The individual soul, as a sentient being, is admitted by Madhva to be self-luminious ('svaprakasa'). It is not merely of the form of knowledge ('jnanasvarupa') but is a knower ('jnatr'). The conception of self as a conscious personality is the same as it is in respect of God, expect for the fact that even the self-luminosity of the jiva is dependent on the Supreme, which makes bondage possible.
Bondage:
pramadatmakatvat bandhasya
(Brahma Sutra Bhasya I - 1 - 17)
Bondage is of the nature of ignorance.
svabhav ajnanavadasya nirdosavat na tad bhavet
(Anu vyakhyana)
The theory that ajnana has the jivas for its locus and acts as a veil around them is not open to any of the difficulties that beset other theories as Brahma ajnana vada.
Madhva calls his theory of bondage by the name of 'svabhava ajnana vada'. Even though the jiva is a self luminous being, still, it is not inconceivable that he should become subject to ignorance of his own true nature and of the nature of God and of his true relationship with Him, as he is a dependent being, and part.
Jayatirta explains this natural ignorance as follows:
(1) it is in the nature of jiva.
(2) it is real, not something imagined.
(3) it establishes the Supreme Lord as Independent.
(4) it establishes the jiva as dependent.
(5) it covers jivas' true nature and the nature of the Lord and his relationship with Him from him.
(6) it is under the control of the Supreme Lord.
svagunacchadika tveka paramacchadika apara
(Bhagavata tatparya 10-81-13)
One of these veils the jivas own qualities and the other veils the true nature of God from him.
According to Madhva the Lord actuates the latent power of prakrti known as maya and avidya and then the bondage begins. Though the jivas are dependent on God, (the theory of svabhava ajnana vada accepts that) the kartrtva (freewill) and bhoktrtva (enjoyer-mood) allows the avidya to act upon them. These faculties as well as the resultant false ego, intelligence, mind, the senses and the senses are all God-given. In ignorance, the jiva thinks that they are all under his control and his possessions. The fact is that they are our possessions subject to the will of the Lord. Due to contact with such material existence and the permeation of the consciousness through all these and the resultant attachment to them, the jiva regards the dualities as his own and subjects himself to continuous material existence in various levels. This is known as samsara.
na ca karmavimamala kala guna prabhutimaccittanu taddhi yata:
(dvadasa statora 3-6)
The true and final explanation of bondage is therefore the will of the Lord and not merely karma, ajnana , kala, gunas etc; for these are insentient and totally dependent on the Lord.
Release:
According to Madhva , the true knowledge of the soul's relation with the Supreme Lord that can redeem it from this bondage. But even by the power of such knowledge, without the grace of the Lord, release is impossible:
ityaderna harim vina
jnanasvabhavato'pi syanmukti: kasyapi hi kvacit
jijnasotthajnanajat tatprasadadeva mucyate
(Anu vyakhyana)
Release from samsara is possible only through Hari's grace. It is achieved by this process:
1) Discipline of sincere study of sastras and proper association 'jijnasa'.
2) This sets one's doubts at rest, and clears the ground for meditation.
3) Constant meditation on the Lord in loving devotion guarantees direct vision of Sri Hari.
4) Those who have such vision receive the grace of Sri Hari.
mahatmya jnana purvastu suddhrda sarvato adhika
sneho bhaktir iti proktas taya muktir na ca anyaya
(Mahabharata tatparya nirnaya I-86)
The firm and unshakable love of God, which rises above all other attachments, based upon an adequate knowledge and conviction of His glories, is called Bhakti. That alone is the process for release – nothing else.
bhaktya jnanam tato bhaktis tato drsthis tatas ca sa
tato muktis tato bhakti: sa eva syat sukha rupini
(Anu vyakhyana iii-4)
Sri Madhva explains the process of bhakti:
(1) devotion
(2) understanding of one's original position
(3) devotion
(4) vision of Lord
(5) devotion
(6) liberation
(7) devotion - essence of bliss and final accomplishment
harer upasana ca atra sadaiva sukha rupini
na tu sadhana bhuta sa siddhir eva atra sa yata
(Brahma-sutra bhasya IV - 4 - 21)
The worship of Sri Hari bestows an unalloyed bliss in itself. It is not a means to any further end. It is the accomplishment itself and the fulfillment of our real self.
nityasiddhatvat sadrsyasya nityanandajnanade;
na bhakti jnana adina prayojanm ityato braviti:
ambuvadagrahanattu na tathatvam
ambuvat snehena/ grahanam jnanam/
bhakti vina na tatsadrsyam samyag bhivyajyate
(Brahma sutra bhasya 2.2.19)
The essential nature of jiva's relationship with the Lord, his consciousness, bliss etc are all constitutional - hence they don't depend on sadhanas like bhakti, jnana etc. This is explained in the Brahma-sutra II-2-19: ambuvat; When all the processes are united with a loving, deep attachment with the Lord it is like the reflecting surface of the water. Without this loving devotion the vision of the Lord is impossible and the manifestation of one's constitutional relationship with the Lord is also impossible.
Bhrigu - May 18, 2005 7:50 am
It's just different spelling. Sometimes it can be Shri Madhavacharya or Madhwacharya as well.
No, it isn't. MAdhava is a name for Vishnu/ Krishna, Madhva is the name (or to be exact, title) of Anandatirtha Purnaprajna, the founder of the Tattvavada school of Vedanta. You often see it misspelled as Madhava, but that doesn't make it any more correct. There is also a MAdhava who wrote a book called Sarva-darsana-samgraha, who is (in older books) sometimes confused with Madhva.
For more information about his philosophy, you can read O.B.L. Kapoor's Philosophy of Madhvacarya. The summary Nandatanuja posted is quite good, I think.
Swami - May 19, 2005 4:17 pm
With so many differences between the dvaitavada and acintyabhedabheda, how can we be said to be followers of Madhva? Sounds more like Caitanya Mahaprabhu started his own sampradya.
Jason - May 19, 2005 6:52 pm
Maharaja,
That's one of the things I'm having trouble with covering in my paper. How are we connected when the teachings seem so different?
Also, I noticed that Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva and Caitanya Mahaprabhu all took at least one initiation from a spiritual teacher who taught something different than what they were expounding. Why?
Jason