by Deepak Sarma
49
anyathâ-khyâti, the New Theory that False Cognition is Knowing
[Something] as Otherwise.
Mâdhva realism
Madhvâcârya’s epistemology undeniably is the foundation for his
extreme realism. Positing sâkùî enables the existence of a subtle
predominance of experiential knowledge over both úruti and anumâna.
Though Madhvâcârya never states that experience has such importance,
it certainly seems to follow that it does.
Like all else in the Mâdhva universe, the components of his realist
epistemology are arranged hierarchically. Some components have more
authority than others. Some sentients are destined to have increased
capabilities over others.
Madhvâcârya’s realism necessitates a rich and developed ontology
that is also hierarchical. As long as the universe is real, as are our
perceptions of it, describing its components is a crucial and unavoidable
task. To begin to accomplish this I will turn to an analysis of Mâdhva
ontology, to the machinery and ingredients of the universe.
63
CHAPTER THREE
Mâdhva ontology
As stated in the Parama Úruti: ‘... The wise [recognize] that [the
universe] is known and protected by Viùõu. Therefore it, [the
universe,] is proclaimed to be real. But Hari [that is, Viùõu] alone is
supreme.’1
This passage, taken from Madhvâcârya’s VTV, strikes at the heart of
his ontology. For Madhvâcârya, the universe is unquestionably real,
as are its components. Viùõu, who is the pinnacle of the Mâdhva
system, moreover, governs real things. To explain these relationships,
Madhvâcârya offers what he believes to be a comprehensive analysis
and classification system of all the items that one could possibly
encounter. Such an account is not to be trivialized, for correct
knowledge of Viùõu and the nature and function of the universe is
essential in order to progress on the path to mokùa, liberation.
Like the elements of his epistemology, those of his rich ontology are
also arranged hierarchically. Viùõu, the central deity in the Mâdhva
pantheon, plays the most important role in the Mâdhva universe. He is
the facilitator of all entities and possible events. He not only acts in the
universe; in fact, the entire universe is manifested due to His activity.
As I point out in Chapter 4, knowledge of this hierarchy and acting in accordance to one’s place in it, results in mokùa, liberation from
the cycle of birth and rebirth. The importance of hierarchy in the
Mâdhva world becomes undeniable where Madhvâcârya’s soteriology
is concerned.
Madhvâcârya’s personal, interactive and existent God directly
contrasts with the impersonal divinity found in the school of Advaita
Vedânta. Madhvâcârya’s conception of God differs from the quasi-
idealism-realism of the Viúiùñâdvaita School founded by the Vaiùõavite
Râmânujâcârya. If one were to plot the traditions on a continuum,
Úaükarâcârya’s impersonal absolute of the Advaita School would be
found at one end, Râmânuja’s immanent-yet-transcendent, qualified
monotheism slightly right of center and Madhvâcârya’s mitigated
monotheism at the other end, as illustrated in Fig. 3.1.
1 mataü hi jñâninâmetasmitaü trâtaü ca viùõunâ | tasmât satyam iti proktaü paramo harir eva tu iti paramaúrutiþ | VTV.
50
64
Mâdhva Ontology
51
Advaita
Viúiùñâdvaita
Mâdhva
Impersonal Absolute
personal God
nirguõa
saguõa
3.1 Schools of Vedânta
The schools can also be distinguished according to the significance they
give to hierarchy. For the Advaita School there is no deity at the top of an
ontological hierarchy, while such a gradation has eminent importance in
the Mâdhva school.
To map out this hierarchy, Madhvâcârya offers a number of different
categories within which to classify all of the constituent parts of the
universe. Given the various ontologies to which he was exposed,
it comes as no surprise that his taxonomical language is dependent
on those of his predecessors. His categories are reminiscent of the
Vaiúeùika and Sâükhya schools and may be modifications of their
respective concepts.2
I reply upon several texts for my analysis of the components of
Mâdhva ontology. These include Madhvâcârya’s Tattvasaükhyâna,
The Enumeration of Reality (hereafter TS) and Tattvaviveka, The
Delineation of Reality (hereafter TV). The TS has only eleven granthas
while the TV has thirteen. These brief texts are part of Madhvâcârya’s
daúaprakaraõa, ten minor philosophical texts, and they concern
ontology.
Later Mâdhvas have offered more detailed accounts of the categories
that Madhvâcârya first described. Some are responses to criticisms of
their taxonomy by the two rival schools of Vedânta and others attend
to lacunae in Madhvâcârya’s original classifications. Most notably,
Vedagarbha Padmanâbhâcârya composed an independent treatise on
Mâdhva ontology called the Madhvasiddhântasâra, The Compendium
of Established Truths of Mâdhva [Vedânta] (also known as the
Padârthasaügraha, The Compendium of [Taxonomical] Categories)
in the 18th century. Although other English introductions to Madhva
Vedânta use Padmanâbhâcârya’s template, I do not, however, include
his or other analyses, commentaries and taxonomies in my account
because they explore debates about the extant concepts and are intended
2 See Gough, Vaiúeshika Aphorisms of Kaõâda and Bahadur, The Wisdom of Vaisheshika for more on the Vaiúeùika tradition. See Larson, Classical Sâükhya for more on the Sâükhya tradition.
65
52
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
for advanced students rather than introductory ones. The TS and TV are
sufficient for this introduction.
Given the centrality of Viùõu to the Mâdhva ontology, I begin my
summary at the bottom of the hierarchy. Leaving the most important for
last, I first examine asvatantram, dependent entities, and then I turn to
Viùõu, the only svatantra, independent entity.
Asvatantram, dependent entities
Madhvâcârya separates, tattva, all of reality, into svatantra, independent, and asvatantra, dependent, entities. The only independent entity is
Viùõu. All other entities are asvatantra, dependent. 3 According to Professor B.N.K. Sharma, the Mâdhva school of Vedânta has been
known as the ‘Dvaita,’ dualist, school because of the magnitude of
this split between svatantra, independent, and paratantra, dependent entities (see Fig. 3.2).4
tattva
Viùõu/ svatantra
avatantra
3.2 Dvaita
What makes entities dependent? On what or on whom are they
dependent? Are they dependent on Viùõu for their creation? It is not
surprising that Madhvâcârya holds that all entities are dependent on Viùõu.
Not only do they require Viùõu for their existence but also, as I show, they
many ignorant sentients are deluded and see themselves as independent.
3 svatantram asvatantraü ca dvividhaü tattvam iùyate | svatantro bhagavân viùõur |
TS 1. In his TV, Madhvâcârya refers to these asvatantra as paratantra, dependent on another. The difference between the two is only nominal. dvividhaü paratantraü ca bhâvo ‘bhâva itîritaþ | TV 2.
4 Sharma, Philosophy, 323. I use the term ‘Mâdhva’ rather than ‘Dvaita’ because the latter is often misunderstood as referring to the number of items recognized in the
Mâdhva universe, namely Viùõu and the jîvas. To avoid this misinterpretation I use
‘Mâdhva.’
66
Mâdhva Ontology
53
God did not create the material stuff of the universe ex nihilo, yet the
material stuff is nonetheless dependent on Him. God is the efficient or
instrumental cause, while prakçti, material stuff, is the material cause.
In this way, the universe is dependent upon God who impels its
development. Hence God is understood to be the only independent
entity while all else is necessarily dependent. Dependency characterizes
the relationship of all entities, sentient, eternal, or otherwise, with Viùõu
and is the foundation of Mâdhva ontology and, as I show in Chapter 4,
soteriology.
Abhâva , non-existent entities
Dependent entities are two-fold: bhâva, existent, and abhâva, non-
existent entities.5 Madhvâcârya further subdivides abhâva, non-existent things, into three categories: prâg, prior, pradhvaüsa, posterior, and sadâ, always non-existent things (see Fig. 3.3).6
asvatantra
bhâva
abhâva
prâg
pradhvaüsa
sadâ
3.3 Asvatantra
Prâgabhâva, prior non-existence, is the non-existence of a substance
before it comes into being. There is a prâgabhâva, an antecedent
non-existence, of this sentence before I type it. Pradhvaüsâbhâva,
posterior non-existence, is the non-existence of a substance after it is
destroyed. The mug that shattered after you dropped it on the kitchen
floor yesterday has been replaced by a pradhvaüsâbhâva. Things
that are sadâbhâva, always non-existent, are entities like square circles,
or the two examples used in South Asian philosophy, úaúaúçïga, the
horn of a hare, and vandhyâputra, the son of a barren woman.
5 ... bhâvâbhavau dvidhetarat | TS 1.
6 prâkpradhvaüsasadâtvena trividho ‘bhâva iùyate | TS 2.
67
54
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
These are impossible entities and are sometimes called atyântâbhava,
permanently non-existent.
What does Madhvâcârya gain by this category? The cognition ‘The
container is not there’ is actually ‘The non-existence of the container is
there.’ Or, the cognition ‘This container has not water’ is actually two
cognitions: ‘This container is there’ and ‘The absence of water is there.’
In this way, abhâva explains the experience of negation.
Bhâva , existent entities
Madhvâcârya separates bhâva, existent entities, into those that are
cetana, sentient and acetana, those that are not sentient. 7 Entities either think or are incapable of thinking. Following the order in which
Madhvâcârya analyzes them, I address the sentient and then the non-
sentient components of his ontology. As per the Mâdhva worldview,
they are arranged hierarchically.
Cetanas , sentient beings
There are several types of cetanas, sentient beings, in the Mâdhva
universe. Their position in the ontological hierarchy is determined by
their ability, or lack thereof, to obtain mokùa, liberation, the ultimate and implicit goal to which all adherents aspire . Ontological components are
directly linked to eschatological and soteriological matters. Just as a
classroom has different kinds of students who can be divided according
to their individual abilities and potentials, so too can the sentient
denizens of the universe be divided. Given the importance of hierarchy
in the Mâdhva universe, it should come as no surprise that cetanas are
also hierarchically arranged. In fact, as I show in Chapter 4, status in mokùa is also graded, since some sentient beings experience more
ânanada, bliss, in mokùa than others. These gradations, moreover, are inscribed in the fabric of the universe and are immutable.
The taxonomy of sentient beings found in the TS is neither an a
posteriori classification nor an arbitrary organization of data obtained
by mere observation. Rank also cannot be altered in the way that
students in remedial classes, through effort and merit, are able to change
their status when they are enrolled in more advanced classes. Instead,
the latent capabilities of sentient beings are determined a priori, cannot
be altered and are part of the nature of the universe. This hierarchy
strictly correlates a fixed ontology with an equally fixed eschatology
7 cetanâcetanatvena bhâvo ‘pi dvividho mataþ | TS 2.
68
Mâdhva Ontology
55
and soteriology. The ability, or lack thereof, to attain mokùa, liberation,
for all sentient beings is part of the predetermined nature of the Mâdhva
universe. Knowing one’s place in the hierarchy is a central component in
the path to mokùa.
Sentient beings are two-fold: duþkhaspçùña, those who are connected
with suffering, and tadaspçùña, those who are not. Ramâ is the only
tadaspçùña jîva and is nityâduþkha, eternally without suffering (see
Fig. 3.4).8
bhâva
cetana
acetana
duþkhaspçùña
tadaspçùña (Úrî)
3.4 Components of bhâva
Ramâ is also known as Lakùmî and as Úrî. She is Viùõu’s consort and, as
indicated above in Chapter 2, she is awarded special epistemological
and ontological status. 9 Despite having such an exalted status in the Mâdhva pantheon, Úrî is nonetheless dependent upon Viùõu.
Madhvâcârya devoted a portion of the seventh canto of his Dvâdaúa
Stotra to salutations and praise of Úrî and in his Chândogya Upaniùad
Bhâùya, he states that, despite being insignificant in comparison to
Viùõu, the immortal goddess Úrî is the object of great love. 10 Though Madhvâcârya makes tadaspçùña part of his classification system, the
category of sentient beings without suffering is comprised of only one
member, namely Úrî, Viùõu’s consort.
Sentient beings who are spçùña-duþkhas, connected with suffering,
are two-fold: duþkha-saüsthas, those whose state of being is suffering,
and vimuktas, those who are already liberated from suffering.11 V imuktas
8 duþkhaspçùñam tadaspçùñam iti dvedhaiva cetanam | nityâduþkhâ ramâ ‘nye tu spçùñaduþkhâssamastaúaþ | TS 3.
9 See Kumar’s The Goddess Lakùmî for further reading on Úrî.
10 alpâpi hy amçta devî úrîþ pûrõâtipriyatvataþ iti ca | Chândogya Upaniùad Bhâùya, 7.26. Thanks to Siauve for this reference. Siauve, 343, nt. 2.
11 spçùñaduþkhâ vimuktâú ca duþkhasaüsthâ iti dvidhâ | TS 4.
69
56
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
are five-fold: devas, gods, çùis, seers, pitçs, ancestors, pa, protectors of the world, and naras, the highest among men. The duþkha-saüsthas are two-fold: the mukti-yogyas, those qualified for release who can be
liberated from suffering and are comprised of the same five groups as
the vimuktas, and the mukty-ayogyas, those who cannot be liberated
from suffering. Only the mukti-yogyas are fit to be liberated from
suffering and to achieve mokùa. 12 How does one obtain liberation from suffering? If cetanas are predestined to obtain mokùa, can they act however they wish? Do jîvas have an agency? I answer these and other
questions in Chapter 4.
According to Madhvâcârya, there are mukty-ayogyas, sentient beings
that can never change their status and are eternally predestined to suffer.
These sentient beings neither can be released from suffering, nor can
they achieve mokùa. The mukty-ayogyas are also subdivided into tamo-yogyas, those who are fit only for darkness, and nitya-saüsârins,
(literally, ‘those who remain in the journey’) those who are eternally
caught in the cycle of birth and rebirth (see Fig. 3.5).13
spçùña-duþkhas
duþkha-saüsthas
vimuktas
devas çùis pitçs
pa naras
mukti-yogyas
mukty-ayogyas
devas çùis pitçs
pa naras tamo-yogyas nitya-saüsârins
3.5 Spçùña-duþkhas
12 devarùipitçpanarâ iti muktâs tu pañcadhâ | evaü vimuktiyogyâú . . | TS 5.
13 ... ca tamogâþ sçtisaüsthitâþ | TS, 5. The terms tamoyogyâþ and nityasaüsârin were first used by Jayatîrtha in his PP: ayoginaþ api trividhâþ | muktiyogyâþ nityasaüsâriõiþ tamoyogyâú ca iti | PP 19.
70
Mâdhva Ontology
57
Tamo-yogyas, those fit for darkness, are proclaimed to be four-fold: the
daityas, demons, the râkùasas, orcs, the piúacas, ghastly lurkers, and the martyâdhamas, vilest of the mortals.14 Tamo-yogyas are two-fold: prâptâdhatamasas, those who suffer in complete darkness, and
sçtisaüsthitâs, those whose way to darkness is through saüsâra (see
Fig. 3.6).15 Some are thus born in a place of suffering and some
eventually are reborn in such places. Madhvâcârya thus proposes a time
frame for some of these vilest to exhibit their vile behavior and, in due
course, to suffer in darkness!
tamo-yogyas
prâptâdhatamasas