by Deepak Sarma
eight svâmis, was ordained as head of the Sôde mañha. Madhvâcârya
placed the mañhas of his disciples under his tutelage. The aùñamañhas
still exist today and are loci for studying both doctrines and rituals
and for the training of virtuosos.47 Madhvâcârya may have developed paryâya, a rotating system of leadership that would begin after his
disappearance.48 It is not altogether clear that the paryâya system existed immediately after Madhvâcârya’s disappearance or if it was a later
development. There is some inscriptional evidence, however, which
indicates that it took effect immediately after he disappeared. In this
system of governing, paryâya, the svâmis of each of the eight mañhas is proclaimed to be leader every two years.
Although the community established by Madhvâcârya has spread to
different parts of India, it is still centered in Karõâñaka state and, most
importantly, in Uóupi. The Uttarâdi, Vyâsarâya, Râyara, Úrîpâdarâya,
Râghavendra and Kukke-Subramanya mañhas among others, are also
central to the contemporary Mâdhva saüpradâya.49
The contemporary Mâdhva community
The community and institutions that Madhvâcârya founded in the 13th
and 14th centuries has grown far outside the boundaries of the southern
Karõâñaka. Like many other communities in South Asia, British
colonization and later diasporic migration has led Mâdhvas to move
within India as well as to leave the subcontinent. The end result has been
a wide dissemination of members of the Mâdhva community. In recent
times, Mâdhvas have maintained their community by establishing a
46 MV 15.128–129.
47 For a brief analysis of contemporary issues facing Mâdhva mañhas, see Rao’s ‘The Udupi Madhva matha.’
48 See Sharma, History, 192–194 for further details about this controversy.
49 This list of mañhas is not comprehensive.
28
Madhvâcârya and the Mâdhva Tradition
15
directory of Mâdhvas in the United States and developing burgeoning
Websites and automated mailing lists.50 Though such globalization is likely to conflict with traditional modes of instruction and transmission,
it has been embraced by the svâmis of the aùñamatþas, some of whom
are now even journeying outside of India. Only time will tell just how
much the tradition will change given these new transformations and
incarnations.
Madhvâcârya’s works: the Sarvamûlagranthâþ, Compendium of
All the Fundamentals
Madhvâcârya wrote a total of 37 treatises, together known as the
Sarvamûlagranthâþ, Compendium of All the Fundamentals.51 First, there are commentaries on the prasthânatraya, three-fold systems. The
Bhagavad Gîtâ, the Brahma Sûtras and ten Upaniùads (the Aitareya, Bçhadâraõyaka, Chândogya, Îúâvâsya, Kena, Kañha, Mâõóûkya, Muõóaka, úañpraúna, Taittiriya), comprise the prasthânatraya and each has a commentary. The Brahma Sûtra Bhâùya, a commentary on Vyâsa’s
Brahma Sûtras, is, perhaps, Madhvâcârya’s most important work and
is, indirectly, a summary of the essence of the Mâdhva position.
Madhvâcârya wrote three other commentaries on the Brahma Sûtras,
including the Aõubhâùya, The Brief Commentary (also known as the
Sarvaúâstrârthasaügrahaþ, Compendium of the Meaning of all the
Úâstras), the Anuvyâkhyâna, An Explanation of the Sûtras, and, finally, the Nyâyavivaraõa, An Exposition on Logic. This large number of
commentaries on the Brahma Sûtras is unusual in comparison to
founders and followers of rival schools of Vedânta. Úaükarâcârya,
for example, composed only one bhâùya, commentary, on the Brahma
Sûtras.
The second category consists of the daúaprakaraõa, ten-fold treatises
on specific topics. In these short treatises, Madhvâcârya presents
arguments concerning epistemology and ontology. His most well-
known works in the area of ratiocination are his Viùõutattva(vi)nirõaya,
The Complete Ascertainment of the Nature of Viùõu and his
Khaõóanatraya, A Trio of Refutations. The Khaõóanatraya is composed
50 See
51 For detailed analyses of the contents of each of these texts see Sharma, History, 90–187 and for a smaller number see Nagaraja Sarma’s Reign of Realism in Indian
Philosophy.
29
16
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
of the Upâdhikhaõóana, The Refutation of the Upâdhi Position, the Mâyâvâdakhaõóana, The Refutation of the Mâyâ Position, and the Prapañcamithyâtvânumânakhaõóana, The Refutation of the Inference
of the Illusoriness of Phenomenal Reality. The Mâyâvâdakhaõóana is, in part, a reaction to arguments found in Úrîharùa’s (the 12th-century ce
Advaita scholar) Khaõóanakhaõóakhâdya.
The third set, the purâõaprasthâna, systems of Purâõa texts,
addresses philosophical matters exemplified in commentaries on myth-
ological, epic and historical-literary works. Madhvâcârya has composed
commentaries on the Mahâbhârata and the Bhâgavata Purâõa. His
commentary on the Mahâbhârata, the Mahâbhâratatâtparyanirõaya,
The Complete Ascertainment of the Meaning of the Mahâbhârata,
is known among contemporary scholars as ‘ un passage étonnat de
modernisme’ because it is an early text wherein the author mentions
that he has critically edited a text on which he is commenting.52 In his commentary, Madhvâcârya mentions the problems with multiple,
corrupt and conflicting manuscripts:
In some places they put new [passages into the text. In some places]
they deleted [texts] and in some places [there are] changes. In other
cases they made changes by mistake. The texts that are not
destroyed are entirely confused. For the most part, [there are only]
corrupt texts. A fraction of the millions [of texts] is not even found.
So the texts are corrupted. [In this way,] even for the gods the
meaning is difficult to understand. So, in this perplexing time,
ordered by Hari, by His grace, having studied all of the úâstra and
the Vedânta, inspired by Hari, having seen the different copies of
the text from different regions, I speak the correct purport [of the
Mahâbhârata].53
Madhvâcârya also includes commentary on the Mûlarâmâyâõa in his
Mahâbhâratatâtparyanirõaya. Given that the main figures of the
Mûlarâmâyâõa and the Mahâbhârata are both avatâras of Viùõu, and, therefore, inextricably linked with one another, the enclosure of
the former in the latter is not unusual. The èg Veda and, therefore,
52 Siauve, La Doctrine, 23.
53 kvacid granthân prakùipanti kvacid antaritân api | kuryuþ kvacic ca vyatyâsaü pramâdât kvacid anyathâ | anutsannâ api granthâ vyâkulâ iti sarvaúaþ | utsannâþ prâyaúassarve koñyaüúo ‘pi na vartate | grantho ‘py evaü vilulitaþ kim vârtho devadurgamaþ | kalâvevaü vyâkulite nirõayâya pracoditaþ | hariõâ nirõayân vacmi vijânaüstatprasâdataþ | úâstrântarâõi sañjânan vedântâüú câsya prasâdataþ | deúe deúe tathâ granthân dçùñvâ caiva pçthagvidhân | Mahâbhâratatâtparyanirõaya, 2.3–2.8.
(hereafter MBhTN).
30
Madhvâcârya and the Mâdhva Tradition
&nb
sp; 17
Madhvâcârya’s èg Bhâùya, is also included among the purâõaprasthâna
by contemporary scholars of Mâdhva Vedânta.
The fourth set of Madhvâcârya’s works is minor treatises on practical
doctrines. These works still play a role in the contemporary practice
of Mâdhva Vedânta. The Tantrasârasaügraha, The Compendium of
the Essential Parts of the Practical Doctrines, and Sadâcârasmçti,
Tradition of Correct Practices, concerns Vaiùõava rituals and worship
frameworks. This fourth set also includes poetic texts such as the
Dvâdaúa Stotra, The Twelve Hymns, which can be set to music and may
have helped to give rise to musical traditions in South Karõâñaka.54
Other relevant Mâdhva works
Although there are a large number of followers of Mâdhva Vedânta who
composed commentaries on texts in Madhvâcârya’s Sarvamûlagranthâþ
and independent treatises on Mâdhva doctrine, two are especially
noteworthy. These two scholars are Jayatîrtha and Vyâsatîrtha, both of
whom, along with Madhvâcârya, are known as the munitrayam, the
three major thinkers, of Mâdhva Vedânta. The two commentators,
Jayatîrtha and Vyâsatîrtha, composed works that changed the trajectory
of Mâdhva Vedânta, both in terms of Mâdhva ratiocinative method
and due to the sustained damage of their arguments against competing
schools.
Jayatîrtha (1365–88 ce) is best known for codifying the doctrines of
Mâdhva Vedânta. Jayatîrtha earned the title ñîkâcârya, author of com-
mentaries, with his two well-known commentaries on Madhvâcârya’s
commentaries on the Brahma Sûtras. His Nyâya Sudhâ, Nectar of Logic, is a commentary on Madhvâcârya’s Anuvyakhyâna and primarily
consists of refutations of the tenets of rival schools. His Tattvaprakaúika, Explanation of Reality, is a commentary on Madhvâcârya’s Brahma
Sûtra Bhâùya. Jayatîrtha’s Pramâõapaddhati, Way of Proof, is one of his independent works and became a standard textbook on Mâdhva logic
and epistemology.
Vyâsatîrtha (1460–1539 ce) is best known for three of his works,
called the Vyâsatrayam, The Trio of Vyâsatîrtha’s Works, by later
Mâdhvas. His Nyâyâmçta, The Ambrosia of Logic, which presents
arguments against Advaita metaphysics, inspired a lengthy series
of debates between the two schools of Vedânta. For example,
Madhusûdhana Sarasvatî, the 16th-century scholar of Advaita Vedânta,
54 Sharma, History, 187–188. Vaiùõavacaran, v.
31
18
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
wrote his Advaitasiddhi in response to Vyâsatîrtha’s criticisms.
Vyâsatîrtha’s Tâtparyacandrikâ was a further systematization of
Madhvâcârya’s position on the Brahma Sûtras. The third member of the
texts classified as Vyâsatrayam is Vyâsatîrtha’s Tarka Tâõóava, The Dance of Logic. The Tarka Tâõóava is a refutation of fundamental
Navya Nyâya principles and, indirectly, of several Pûrva Mîmâüsâ
positions.
Theory and practice
The life and history of Madhvâcârya and Mâdhva Vedânta offered here
should help readers to view the tradition as a living one and not as
simply a set of doctrines lacking practitioners. When one immerses
oneself in epistemological and other more theoretical issues, one often
forgets that the beliefs in question cannot, and do not, stand apart from
their practice. It must not be forgotten that the ultimate goal of the
Mâdhva tradition was to offer a convincing solution to the problem of
birth and rebirth and an efficient and correct path to mokùa. Their
solution, moreover, could not stand apart from the texts that they
commented upon. This brief foray into the life and history of
Madhvâcârya and Mâdhva Vedânta serves to remind readers of this link
between theory and practice. With this context in mind, I now turn to the
core of the Mâdhva position, namely epistemology.
32
CHAPTER TWO
Mâdhva epistemology
A means of valid knowledge is that which reveals an object [of
knowledge] as it is.1
Madhvâcârya begins his Pramâõalakùaõa, Characterization of the
Means of Valid Knowledge, with this rather bold statement revealing
the foundation of his philosophy of realism: that it is possible to have
knowledge of an object that is free from sublation. Such a position is
not surprising, given that Mâdhva philosophy is in part a reaction
against Advaita Vedânta. Scholars of the Advaita School hold that
objects that we see in vyâvahârika, our everyday experience, are not as
they appear. Instead, objects are no more than superimpositions onto
brahman, divinity.2 For this reason, in Advaita Vedânta anything that one perceives can be sublated, is not real and one’s perceptions are not
entirely valid. It is not possible to know an object as it really is. For
the Advaita School, means of valid knowledge are not yathârtha as
Madhvâcârya defines it and, in fact, do not reveal the true nature of
the objects of cognition. The status of all knowledge, perceptual and
otherwise, is thus problematized in the Advaita epistemology.
Madhvâcârya’s epistemology of realism is in direct opposition to
Advaita Vedânta. Sat, real, objects for Madhvâcârya certainly are
neither mere superimpositions, nor products of our imagination or of a
Cartesian evil genius.3 In contrast to the Advaita position, valid and true knowledge is knowledge that is not superimposed and cannot be sublated.
In order to justify his epistemology of realism, Madhvâcârya relies on
a variety of cognitive apparatus and mechanisms. His account includes
unavoidable presuppositions that also correlate with his ontology,
soteriology and eschatology. In this chapter, I introduce readers to
this system, which includes his theories about valid knowledge, the
instruments of valid knowledge via logical discourse and the tools by
which we construct cognitions.
It is all too easy to forget that Mâdhva epistemological reflection
was never an end in itself. Instead, it was always in the service of
soteriology. A proper understanding of the mechanisms of the universe,
1 yathârthaü pramâõam | Pramâõalakùaõa.
2 See Chapter 3 for more on the term brahman.
3 See Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation 1.
19
33
20
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
including epistemological ones and, most importantly, complete and
correct knowledge of brahman, is essential to being granted mokùa. An incorrect understanding of brahman is the reason why sentient beings
are reborn.4 Such knowledge combined with bhakti, devotion , and other practices eventually can break the cycle. Although I address these issues
of practice in Chapter 4, it is vital that readers keep them in mind and do not artificially separate the theoretical from the practical.
I am dependent upon several texts from the Mâdhva corpus for my
analysis, including Madhvâcârya’s Pramâõalakùaõa, Characterization
of the Means of Valid Knowledge (hereafter PL). The Pramâõalakùaõa,
a prakaraõa, minor philoso
phical tract, is a handbook of his
epistemology. It is comprised of fifty granthas, unmetered thirty-two-
syllable verses. It also contains arguments against epistemological
positions held by a number of schools including the Advaita School of
Vedânta. Although this text has inspired many commentaries I rely only
on Jayatîrtha’s Pramâõapaddhati, The Path Towards the Means of Valid
Knowledge, (hereafter PP) an independent treatise of 750 granthas
modeled after the PL. These two texts, combined with references to
Mâdhva epistemology found in his Brahma Sûtra Bhâùya, Commentary
on the Brahma Sûtras, Viùõutattva(vi)nirõaya (hereafter VTV), The Complete Ascertainment of the Nature of Viùõu, and Anuvyakhyâna
(hereafter AV), An Explanation of the Sûtras, are sufficient for the
purposes of this introduction. The Viùõutattva(vi)nirõaya, also a
prakaraõa, is a detailed refutation of Advaita positions. It contains
arguments against Advaita epistemology as well as criticisms of
Advaita interpretations of controversial passages from úruti, the
revealed texts of the Vedic canon, and is comprised of 540 granthas.
Both the Brahma Sûtra Bhâùya and Anuvyakhyâna are commentaries on
the Brahma Sûtras.
Pramâõa, the means of valid knowledge
One primary concern of the schools of South Asia philosophy is to
characterize what constitutes a pramâõa, means of valid knowledge .
There are debates among all of the schools concerning the definitions
and components of pramâõa. Buddhists, for example, do not hold the
sacred texts of the Hindus, such as the Vedas, to be unquestionably true.
Their theories about what constitutes a pramâõa would surely conflict
with the schools of Vedânta. Given the centrality of pramâõas and
4 nâvedadinmanute taü bçhantaü sarvânubhûmâtmânaü sâmparâye | BSB 1.1.3.
34
Mâdhva Epistemology
21
epistemic theory, students of the schools of philosophy in South Asia
were required to learn the intricacies of their own epistemologies and
those of rivals. For this reason, I begin my characterization of the
doctrines of Mâdhva Vedânta with epistemic theories.
Pramâõas, according to Madhvâcârya, are of two varieties, kevala
and anu.5 Kevala-pramâõa is direct knowledge of an object as it is, while anu-pramâõa, indirect knowledge, is the instrument that gives