by Deepak Sarma
else is dependent, this does not mean that He creates the universe ex
nihilo. Instead, Viùõu helps manifest the unmanifested prakçti. But why is it vital for Madhvâcârya to construe Viùõu as an efficient cause rather
than a material cause? Madhvâcârya holds to this position because it
does not conflict with his belief that God is immutable. If Viùõu were the
material cause of the universe, creating prakçti and its emanations out of
Himself, then He would change. Change is not a desirable attribute and
would belie that Viùõu was imperfect. Since He is only the efficient
cause, this imperfection does not afflict Viùõu. Madhvâcârya can then
correctly and unequivocally describe Viùõu as: ‘The eternal âtman, the
eternal Hari, who is immutable, pure, whose power and wisdom are
always the same, whose form is bliss, who is without change, who is
imperishable ... .’39
The svâtantrya, independence, of Viùõu cannot be underestimated
as the lynchpin that holds together Mâdhva ontology. Not only does it
serve as the ontological foundation, but, as I show in Chapter 4, realizing one’s dependence on Viùõu is the goal for all adherents who seek mokùa.
Madhvâcârya’s characterization of Viùõu reveals the influence of
other Vaiùõava traditions that existed in medieval Karõâñaka. These
descriptions rely primarily on accounts found in the Purâõas, the
Mahâbhârata and the Ramâyaõa which portray Viùõu as a personal
God, in contrast to the accounts given by his Advaita counterparts. The
Advaita tradition holds that brahman, divinity, is not a personal God, is
nirguõa and cannot be characterized. Madhvâcârya holds the exact
opposite position. For Madhvâcârya God is real, saguõa, is the object of
bhakti, devotion, and is knowable to a certain extent.
In this section I offer a brief examination of the nature of Viùõu.40 To this end, I first examine the sources for knowledge of Viùõu. I then turn
to the attributes of Viùõu and His relationship with the universe. Next, I
38 Despite the similarity, Madhvâcârya does not actually offer a formal proof for the existence of God. In his BSB he doubts the utility of inference for ‘It is possible to make an inference [to prove whatever] one desires’, yathâkâmaü hy anumâtuü úakyate | BSB
1.1.18.
39 avikâraþ sadâ úuddho nitya âtmâ sadâ hariþ | sadaikarûpavijñânabala ânandarûpakaþ | nirvikâro ‘kùaraþ ... | AV 1.4.59.
40 For a detailed analysis of Viùõu see Puthiadam. I am reliant upon his superb analysis for much of this discussion.
78
Mâdhva Ontology
65
summarize His vyûhas, emanations, and avatâras, incarnations. Finally, I probe the possibility that Madhvâcârya places limitations on Viùõu.
Such limitations result in what I refer to as a ‘mitigated monotheism.’
Sadâgamaikavijñeyaü , one who can be known only via the true
âgamas
According to Madhvâcârya, Viùõu is to be worshipped, is the object
of meditation and can be known, in part, after in-depth study. Proper
knowledge of the nature of God and one’s dependence upon Him
eventually leads to aparokùa-jñâna, unmediated knowledge, of Viùõu
granted by Viùõu Himself. In his BSB, Madhvâcârya writes that
‘And without the knowledge [of brahman, that is, Viùõu], there is no
extraordinary grace [granted by brahman].’41 This divine knowledge is granted just prior to obtaining mokùa. Obtaining a complete
understanding of Viùõu, both in the realm of parokùa-jñâna, mediated
knowledge, found in texts and from gurus, teachers and in the realm of
aparokùa-jñâna, is thus the basis of Mâdhva teleology. Where, then, is
this essential knowledge to be found?
As I mentioned in Chapter 2, knowledge of Viùõu can be obtained
only through the âgamas. Readers are reminded of this throughout
Madhvâcârya’s texts in maõgala-úlokas, adulations, that are descriptive
of Viùõu. In one such passage found in his VTV, Madhvâcârya describes
Him as ‘one who can be known only via the true âgamas.’42 The next passage in the VTV, a citation from the Brahmâõóa Purâõa, makes
an even stronger claim: ‘He cannot be known by mere reasoning,
perception, or other means. He can only be known via the âgamas and
by bhaktas, devotees, not in any other way.’43 Madhvâcârya completes this section in the VTV with four more citations from âgama in order
to prove his claim. gama is regarded as a pramâõa, though its scope and, therefore, validity is limited to concepts and phenomena outside of
human perception, namely, Viùõu and dharma.
Is this knowledge from the âgamas complete? Is it sufficient for
obtaining mokùa? According to Madhvâcârya, although Viùõu can be
known via the âgamas, this knowledge is only partial. Remember,
adherents must be granted aparokùa-jñâna by Viùõu to have attained the
most comprehensive understanding for which they are eligible, given
41 ... na ca jñânaü vinâtyarthaprasâdaþ ... | BSB 1.1.1. For more see Chapter 4.
42 sadâgamaikavijñeyaü | VTV.
43 na ca kevalatarkeõa nâkùajena na kenacit | kevalâgamavijñeyo bhaktair eva na cânyathâ | iti brahmâõóe | VTV.
79
66
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
their individual capabilities. Not surprisingly, given the importance of
gradation in the Mâdhva world, the degree of comprehension is again
hierarchically indexed, as I point out in Chapter 4.
Viùõu is brahman , divinity
If Viùõu is to be understood only by a thorough study of the âgamas,
what happens when He does not appear to be their subject? At first
glance, some of the references in the âgamas appear to be in praise of
other gods and goddesses and not of Viùõu. These other deities are
praised in ways that might make the uncertain and wavering bhakta,
devotee, doubt the supremacy of Viùõu. Who are these other deities? Are
they as powerful as Viùõu? Or even more confusing, how is one to
interpret the first passage of the Brahma Sûtras of Bâdarâyaõa, which
begins with the following aphorism: ‘Then, therefore, the inquiry into
brahman’?44
Novice readers of Mâdhva texts may wonder ‘What is brahman?,’ ‘Is
it different from Viùõu?’ and ‘Isn’t Viùõu, not brahman, the object of our
Vedânta study and meditation?’ Madhvâcârya’s answer is that all words
in the âgamas refer to Viùõu. For example, the term ‘ brahman’ is just another name of Viùõu.45 First occurring in the èg Veda, ‘ brahman’
was used periodically in the Brâhmaõas and is found in high frequency
in the Upaniùads. Though all the schools of Vedânta agree that the
term refers to a divine principle, they vehemently disagree about its
character. Followers of the Advaita tradition believe that the term refers
to the unitary divine principle that underlies all entities which is
impersonal, without attributes and cannot be characterized. In contrast,
Madhvâcârya stipulates that brahman is identical with Viùõu and, in
fact, that this appellation is preferable. In his Aõubhâùya (hereafter AB),
for example, Madhvâcârya prescribes that Viùõu must be eternally
worshipped as ‘
brahman’ even in times of crisis.46 This unusual hermeneutic, based on linguistic and grammatical points, allows him to
prove that all references to brahman in the úruti are, in fact, references to Viùõu.47 But this linguistic identity does not end with the term brahman.
According to Madhvâcârya, all words, even those having a mundane
44 athâto brahmajijñâsâ | BSB 1.1.1.
45 brahmaúabdaú ca viùõâveva | BSB 1.1.1.
46 viùõurbrahma tathâdâte ty evaü nityam upâsanam | AB 4.1. See also Siauve, Les Noms Védiqes de Viùõu.
47 For detailed examinations of several of these etymological derivations and subsequent identities, see Puthiadam, 91–101.
80
Mâdhva Ontology
67
usage, refer to Viùõu. 48 This even includes concepts in Madhvâcârya’s philosophy! In his AB, Madhvâcârya writes: ‘The terms “antecedent
cause” and “subordinate cause,” and the terms “nature” and even
“void,” among others, signify [Him] preeminently.’49 The strength of this hermeneutic cannot be underestimated. Not only can the references
to other gods and goddesses be reinterpreted as reference to Viùõu,
but references to brahman that seem to favor the Advaita position, if
understood properly, confirm Madhvâcârya’s!
Viùõu is saguõa , having attributes
Madhvâcârya is very careful to inform readers that Viùõu has an infinite
number of attributes. His care shows a rejection of the Advaita position
that brahman is nirguõa, without attributes. While the Advaita position of non-dualism cannot allow for any differentiation whatsoever, a
supreme deity filled with attributes fits in nicely with Mâdhva
monotheism. Viùõu is praised as one who is saguõa, filled with excellent
attributes that are without defect, in the maõgala úlokas, adulations, of
many of his texts.50 Madhvâcârya also offers an interpretive strategy to explain why there are so many characterizations of brahman as nirguõa
in the âgamas.51 If the âgamas are read properly, then they confirm, rather than reject, Madhvâcârya’s interpretations!
Viùõu possesses attributes such as beauty, ânanda, bliss and
intelligence.52 He is held to be all-pervading and to be one who devours everything. He lacks the defect of being perceptible. He possesses
all characteristics, such as being immanent in the universe and in the
individual selves and the like.53 Lists of these and other attributes can be found in Madhvâcârya’s Dvâdaúa Stotra, a text devoted almost
exclusively to propitiating Viùõu. These attributes and descriptions are
48 mukhyataþ sarvaúabdaiú ca vâcya eko janârdanaþ | avyaktaþ kârmavâkyaiú ca vâcya eko ‘mitâtmakaþ | AB 1.7.
49 avântaraü kâraõaü ca prakçtiþ úûnyam eva ca | ity âdyanyatraniyatair api mukhyatayoditaþ | úabdair ato ... | AB 1.8.
50 Puthiadam first noted the frequency of these references. Puthiadam, 115.
See: nârâyaõaü guõaiþ sarvaiþ rudîrõam doùavarjitam | AB 1.1. nârâyaõo
‘gaõyaguõanityaikanilayâkçtiþ | UK 1. nârâyaõaü sadâ vande nirdoùaúeùasadguõam |
Madhvâcârya, VTV. nârâyaõaü gunaissarvair rudîrõaü doùavarjitam | BSB 0.
51 See Puthiadam for more on this hermeneutic. Puthiadam, 114–120.
52 namo ‘mandanijânandasândrasundaramûrtaye | indirâpataye nityânandabhojanadâyine | UK 20.
53 sarvago ‘tta niyantâ ca dçùyatvâdyujjhitaþ sadâ | viúvajîvântaratvâdyair lingaiþ sarvair yutaþ sa hi | AB 1.4.
81
68
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
not particularly unusual among monotheistic traditions, so I will not
characterize them in detail here.54
Viùõu’s vyûhas , emanations, and avatâras , incarnations
The Vaiùõava traditions of South Asia share the belief that Viùõu has
multiple manifestations though they differ on the relationship that Viùõu
has with His manifestations. Accounts of their lives and activities are
found in Purâõic and epic âgamas, most notably the Mahâbhârata
and the Ramâyaõa, which are well known by practicing Vaiùõavas.
Whether these records gave rise to the philosophical characterization
or vice versa is a matter of debate. The historical validity of these
can be challenged in the same way that one can question the truth of
Biblical parables. Many Mâdhvas certainly hold them to be accurate.
For the purposes of this volume, I accept them as true. Accuracy aside,
Madhvâcârya separates the manifestations into two groups: Viùõu’s
vyûhas, emanations, and His avatâras, incarnations.
The vyûhas have their bases in the Pañcarâtrâgamas and are
mechanisms by which the universe is ordered, was created and evolves.55
According to Madhvâcârya, Viùõu has either four or five vyûhas,
emanations, named Vâsudeva, Saükarùaõa, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and
Nârâyaõa.56 The status of the fifth vyûha, Nârâyaõa, is not clear and, in some passages he is not even mentioned.57 Nevertheless, the vyûhas function in the evolution of the prakçti and are each attached to
components of Mâdhva ontology. Vâsudeva is associated with mahat
and with granting mokùa. Saükarùaõa is affiliated with ahaükâra and is believed by Madhvâcârya to be the destroyer. Pradyumna helps
to convey the jîvas during their rebirth. Aniruddha is associated
with manas and functions to maintain the status quo.58 The names of the first four are connected with the story of Kçùõa, one of Viùõu’s most
54 See Puthiadam for more on Viùõu’s attributes.
55 For further reading see Schrader, Introduction to the Pâñcarâtra and the Ahirbudhnya Saühitâ, 40–50, Glasenapp, 34–36 and Puthiadam, 138–140.
56 In his AV Madhvâcârya mentions the five: eko nârâyaõo devo ...
vasudevâdirupeõa caturmûrtiú ca sarvaúaþ atahavâ pañcamûrtiþ sa prokto
‘dhikaraõaü | AV 1.1.252. I owe this citation to Glasenapp. See Glasenapp, 35 nt. 3.
57 vâsudevaþ saükarùaõaþ pradyumno ‘niruddho ‘haü | BSB 2.3.48.
58 itthaü vicintya pramassa tu vâsudevanâmâ babhûva nijamuktipadapradâtâ | MBhTN
1.6. saükarùaõaú ca sa babhûva punassunityaþ saühârakâraõavapustadanujñayaiva
| MBhTN 1.7 sthitvâ svamûrtibhiramûbhiracintyaúaktiþ pradyumnarûpaka imâüú
caramâtmane ‘dât | MBhTN 1.8. sthityai punaþ sa bhagavânanirûddhanâmâ | MBhTN
1.8.
82
Mâdhva Ontology
69
well-known avatâras, incarnations. Vâsudeva is another name for Kçùõa
and Pradyumna is Kçùõa’s son. Aniruddha is Pradyumna’s son and
Saükarùaõa is another name of Balarâma, Kçùõa’s older brother.
Viùõu also has avatâras, incarnations. In contrast to vyûhas, avatâras are manifestations of Viùõu that appear and act in the world. There are
ten avatâras which are considered to be traditional: Matsya, ‘the fish,’
Kûrma, ‘the tortoise,’ Varâha, ‘the boar,’ Narasiüha, ‘the man-lion,’
Vâmana, ‘the dwarf,’ Paraúurâma, ‘Râma with the axe,’ Râma, Kçùõa,
Buddha and Kalki. Although these ten are the most significant,
Madhvâcârya claims that the actual number is innumerable.59 The
avatâras need not be exclusively human because Viùõu assumes animal
form as well. Parables chronicling their lives are very popular among
Vaiùõava Hindus, are often chanted ritually and are part of temple
iconography. Still, why does Viùõu have avatâras, incarnations, at all?
Is one more important than others? What is the relationship between
Viùõu and his avatâras?
Viùõu appears on the earth in order to defend dharma and His
devotees as is established in Chapter 4 of the Bhagavad Gîtâ: Oh Bhârat! Whenever there is a decline of dharma and an increase
in adharma, then I [Viùõu] emit myself. I arise in every yuga for
the protection of the good people, the destruction of those who do
wicked things and for the establishment of dharma.60
All Vaiùõavas believe this to be true and Madhvâcârya is no exception.
Madhvâcârya’s commentary on these passages addresses possible
doubts of His svâtantrya, independence. He explains that this passage
from the Bhagavad Gîtâ should not be misunderstood to indicate
that Viùõu was obligated to incarnate Himself.61 If He were, then He would no longer be svatantra, independent, and this cannot be the case.
Instead, Viùõu incarnates Himself out of lîlâ, playful sport, which is
an intrinsic part of His nature.62 Since the natures of the jîvas are unchangeable, Viùõu does not incarnate Himself to ‘save’ those wicked
ones who have gone astray.
59 ... aham matsyaþ kûrmo varâho nârasiüho vâmano râmo râmaþ kçùõo buddhaþ kalkir ahaü úatadhâ ‘haü sahasradhâ ‘haü amito ‘haü ananto ‘haü ... | BSB 2.3.48.
60 yadâ yadâ hi dharmasya glânirbhvati bhârata | abhyutthânam adharmasya tadâ ‘tmânaü sçjâmy aham | paritrâõâya sâdhûnâü vinâúâya ca duùkçtâm |
dharmasaüsthâpanârthaya sambhavâmi yuge yuge | BGB 4.7–8. I am indebted to
Puthiadam for these apropos citations. Puthiadam, 141–142. This passage is directly
from the Gîtâ.
61 na janmanaiva paritrâõâdikaü kâryam iti niyamaþ | BGB 4.8.
62 tathâ ‘pi lîlayâ svabhâvena ca yatheùñacarî | BGB 4.8.
83
70
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
Given the importance of Kçùõa in Mâdhva ritual, it would appear
prima facie that He is the most important avatâra of Viùõu. Not only do lay Mâdhvas worship Kçùõa above all other Viùõu avatâras, but the
sacred geography of Mâdhva Vedânta around Uóupi seems totally
dominated by Kçùõa, beginning with the Uóupi Úrî Kçùõa temple built