'Unerstanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva system'

July 25, 2009

Namaste to all.

In Msg no. 46050 Shri SN Sastri ji says:

I have seen the additional note of Subbu-ji. The following points are made out

by him. My remarks are given under each.

1. " This implies that Brahman according to Sankara is independent, Svatantra. We

see that even the key metaphysical layout the Madhva system has is already

present in Advaita. "

My remarks—How does this show that dvaita and advaita are the same?

Subbu says:

The metaphysical layout is what marks out a system. When this is the similar

in two systems, a unity naturally gets established. It is a different matter

that some followers of the two systems do not agree to the idea of similarity.

That does not make the idea itself an erroneous one.

SN says:

2. " Both terms culminate in holding the dependent reality a mithya, unreal " .

My remarks—This is most surprising. Madhva does not consider the world to be

mithya at all. The word mithya is used only in advaita.

Subbu says:

I know that Madhva does not say the world is mithya. [that he does not consider

the world to be mithya is what is left to debate. According to Appayya

Dikshitar all the four Acharyas had the same realization of the Truth. Vidwan

Mani Dravid Sastrigal's speech says this very clearly. That they differed from

each other while making their systems is only to address differently-abled

aspirants. ]

SN says:

The concept of different levels of reality does not exist in any system other

than advaita. All others have only one level of reality. For them the world,

jiva and Brahman are all equally real. Things like a rabbit's horn are unreal.

There is nothing in between like vyAvahArika as in advaita. The concept of

nirguNa rahman is not accepted in any darshana other than advaita. I am sure

Subbuji knows this and so I am very much surprised at what he is writing.

Subbu says:

The concept of different levels of reality very much exists in Dvaita. See

this:

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:

// Madhva (1238-1317 CE)

According to Madhva there are two orders of reality: 1. svatantra, independent

reality, which consists of Brahman alone and 2. paratantra, dependent reality,

which consists of jivas (souls) and jada (lifeless objects). Although dependent

reality would not exist apart from brahman's will, this very dependence creates

a fundamental distinction between brahman and all else, implying a dualist view.

//

Note the word `order': The dictionary says it means `rank', `classification',

etc. If according to Madhva the triad of Brahman, world and souls are `equally

real' as understood by Sri Sastriji, why would they rank/classify them into two

types? Obviously, according to them Brahman which is named Swatantra satya, is

of a higher order of reality than the world and souls which are named paratantra

satya. No one would equate Swatantantra with paratantra. It is illogical to do

so. Also Vyasatirtha's verse says `HariH para-taraH'. The particle/suffix

`taraH' in Sanskrit is used when a comparison between two/three members is

made. For example: shuddhaH, shuddha-taraH and shuddha-tamaH. When Hari is

para-taraH, definitely it is held by them that `compared to the world and souls

Brahman is superior.' This is not very difficult to understand. Further in

their sampradaya they have a popular slogan: `Hari sarvottamaH, vAyu

jIvottamaH'. This means: `Hari, Brahman, is the Supreme One and vAyu is the

supreme soul'. The suffix `tamaH' in Sanskrit means the superlative. This

proves that according to them Brahman is ascribed a definitely higher order of

reality than the world and souls. Thus the notion that `The concept of

different levels of reality does not exist in any system other than advaita. All

others have only one level of reality. For them the world, jiva and Brahman are

all equally real.' is completely wrong.

For Dvaitins, the world and jiva are only dependently real and Brahman is

independently real. A careful reading of the internet Article I have referred to

will make this clear.

http://www.indiadivine.org/articles/218/1/Philosophy-of-Dvaita-Vedanta/Page1.htm\

l

There is nothing inbetween like vyavaharika for them. But I am equating the

vyavaharika of Advaita with their paratantra (which Shankara Himself has done by

using the term paratantra for prakriti and jivas just as the Madhva system does,

while popularly holding that prakriti and jiva are only vyavaharika, ultimately

mithya).

The concept of Nirguna Brahman is not openly admitted by them. What does this

statement of theirs: // Brahman can do very well without prakrti or purusa

(Dependent Realities)// mean ?

A Brahman that has no relationship whatsoever with the world and souls cannot be

said to have any attributes. Only when any relationship is admitted with the

world can Brahman be said to possess guNas like creatorship, lordship,

directorship, (Ishwaratva, antaryAmitva, etc), and other kalyANa Guna-s. The

very admitting by that system of a Brahman that can be without any relationship

with the world amounts to their admitting a Nirguna Brahman. This is my

conclusion and there is nothing to be surprised about this. Their statement is

clear. It also says that the relationship of Brahman with the world is only

incidental, contingent upon Its `willing' to so relate with the world and souls.

How is this different from the Advaitic concept of `mAyA-shabalitatvam' of

Brahman? In Advaita too, the Absolutely nirguNa Brahman gets into creation mode

only when it associates itself with Maya. I see no difference in this area

too.

SN says:

3. " For the goal of both advaita and dvaita is not to retain samsara but to show

the means to realize Brahman as free from Vishnu Maya " .

My remarks—Does Madhva accept Maya at all? There is no maya or ignorance as

advaita understands it, as far as Madhva is concerned. In fact `mAyAvAdi' is a

term used by them to ridicule Shankara.

Subbu says:

None can escape accepting Maya covertly or overtly. They state that Brahman has

a Will. To me this Will is nothing but Maya. I have already explained that if

they do not use terms like Mayavadi to ridicule Shankara, they cannot claim

themselves to be different from Advaitins. Appayya Dikshitar holds that the

other systems attacking Advaita is in the manner of `nahi nindaa nyaaya'. This

nyaya, in its full form is: `nahi nindaa nindyam ninditum pravartate, api cha

vidheyam stotum.' Their purport in attacking Advaita is not to ridicule Advaita

per se but to impress upon their followers to adhere to what they themselves are

teaching. So there is no problem here. I have given a link in my original

article to a Purandara Dasa song that speaks about Maya. It also says that `the

body is not the Self, it is not of the Self, it is not going to remain in

future…etc.' the same way Advaitins say. How else can the Dvaitins explain the

soul taking the body, etc. to be the self? After all, their jiva-s also have

this body-identification. How can it be explained unless

delusion/ignorance/adhyasa/avarana are not brought in? Another song of

Purandara Dasa says: `The Darkness of Maya has engulfed me, have mercy on me O

Lord, and free me from this state'.

SN says:

4. " The liberated Jiva of the Madhva system does not contact the material world.

So does the mukta jiva in the advaita system " .

This is another very strange statement. For Madhva mukti is only going to

vaikunta and serving the Lord. In advaita mukti is attained here. No doubt one

who is dead has no further contact with the world, but can that be compared to

the state of the jivanmukta in advaita?

Subbu says:

What is strange in this statement of mine? Let Mukti mean going to Vaikunta.

But mukti is experiencing one's innate nature of bliss, MuktiH naija

sukhaanubhUtiH for them. I have quoted Vyasatirtha's verse condensing the

tenets of the Madhva system. In Advaita also `sva svarUpa ananda avagatiH' is

mukti. Jivanmukti is the only area where apparently differences exist between

the two schools. But I have heard Purandara dasa using the term jivanmukti in

some of his ugaabhoga songs. They may not use the term jivanmukti but

logically, a Tattva jnani of Madhva school also has to conform to the rules of a

sthita prajna that the Advaita jivanmukta also bears. Where is the problem

here?

SN says:

5. " The world is real only based on ignorant view point. Is that not a core

similarity between the two " ?

According to Madhva there is no such thing as ignorance which deludes the jiva

as we understand it in advaita. It is only advaita that says that the world

appears only due to ignorance. There is no such concept at all in dvaita. For

them the world is real and mukti is only by the grace of God and not by removal

of ajnAna as in advaita.

Subbu says:

In the Madhva system too there is acceptance of ajnana that deludes the jiva and

a Tattva jnani is the one who has overcome this delusion. For them too jnanam

is essential to remove ignorance. The only difference is: the one who possesses

Tattva jnanam is not a mukta just by virtue of this knowledge but has to be

graced by the Lord to become a mukta. This is a very minor difference, not at

all consequential. They might term these things differently; that is only

semantics. My concern is to see what lies underneath these terms and concepts.

For them the world is only dependently real and not absolutely. If we miss this

difference we will be only holding on to unenquired-into concepts like laymen.

For them also the world has to be shunned to gain the vision of Hari. They too

will have to give up all thoughts of the world in order to contemplate on Hari.

SN says:

Appayya Dikshita certainly wrote treatises on all the vedantic systems. But he

did not say that all of them are the same, as the present author does. Vachaspti

Misra wrote treatises on all the six astika darshanas. That does not mean that

he considered all of them to be the same.

Subbu says:

How can anyone say that the six darshanas are the same? I am not saying that

`all systems are the same'. What I am trying to establish is that the two

systems Advaita and Dvaita are very similar. Quoting a verse of Appayya

Dikshitar : ` Ananda teertha muni, lakshmana deshikendra ..' for which Polaham

Rama Sastry, the author of the work `chatur mata saamarasyam' says:

// In the verse quoted Sri Dikshita speaks of the philosophies of Dvaita etc.,

being the means to moksha and of the validity of all those philosophies in the

sense of different steps in a ladder and with persons of varying qualifications.

That is what is also stated in the Sutasamhita and other works. From this

standpoint, Sri Dikshita affirms that the view that these philosophies are

contradictory to one another becomes untenable. //

In my conclusion I have stated this `avirodha', non-contradictory nature.

Further, Vidyaranya had a different agenda when he penned the work `sarva

darshana sangraha'. It was to state what these systems have to say. Appayya

Dikshitar went a step forward to work out a reconciliation of the four schools.

What is wrong in this? For this reason does the tradition of Advaita fault

Dikshitar?

SN says:

I do not think it is necessary to deal with all the other lengthy arguments

given. All that is stated goes totally against the theories of Madhva himself.

Subbu says:

Instead of dismissing the arguments that I have provided as not deserving a

reply, it would be rewarding to examine them carefully and then form one's own

opinions. I would like to know what `All that is stated goes totally against

the theories of Madhva himself.' If specific cases are provided instead of

making a sweeping remark, I would be able to put the question in perspective and

make a reply.

With Humble pranams,

subbu

July 27, 2009

[that he does not consider the world to be mithya is what is left to

debate. According to Appayya Dikshitar all the four Acharyas had the same

realization of the Truth. Vidwan Mani Dravid Sastrigal's speech says this

very clearly. That they differed from each other while making their

systems is only to address differently-abled aspirants. ]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

This is very interesting observation..Would it be possible for you to give

more details of the above. Though we are nowhere in a picture to comment

on the authentication of realization of these Acharya-s, we can logically

infer (based on their available original works) to ask how these Acharya

traya-s 'attacked' other systems while advocating their siddhAnta?? I

dont think when Sri rAmAnujAchArya raising his objections on mahApurvapaxa

in ShreebhAshya, says advaita & his system are meant ONLY for differently

abled aspirants!! When Sri madhvAchArya taking advaita for a task &

vehemently refuting concept of upAdhi, avidyA, nirguNatva etc. he did not

utter even a single word with regard to adhikAra bheda!!?? So, in my

humble opinion, different approaches adopted by different Acharya-s are

not as smooth & catholic as we are tempting to assume here.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

July 27, 2009

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Kindly pardon me for digging-in here.

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:

// Madhva (1238-1317 CE)

bhaskar :

Since I donot have the internet access, kindly clarify who is the writer

of the above dvaita philosophy?? whether this has been approved by

orthodox dvaitins and confirmed that this article is an authentic

representation of 'tattvavAda' of Sri madhvachArya?? why I am asking this

question is, even among dvaitins there is difference of opinion with

regard to BNK sharma, Alur Venkataram etc. etc. & on their affiliation to

'strict & rigid' tattvavAda. In vAdAvaLi you can see the discussion on

these topics.

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

If according to Madhva the triad of Brahman, world and souls are `equally

real' as understood by Sri Sastriji, why would they rank/classify them

into two types? Obviously, according to them Brahman which is named

Swatantra satya, is of a higher order of reality than the world and souls

which are named paratantra satya. No one would equate Swatantantra with

paratantra. It is illogical to do so.

bhaskar :

what exactly is the justification a reconciler of dvaitAdvaita philosophy

can give about dvaitins interpretation of shruti 'tattvamasi' as

'attatvamasi' ?? how exactly we can have a amicable solution to tattva

vAdins eternal paNcha bedha-s and permanent residents of andha tamas,

saMsAra yOgya & mukti yOgya jeeva-s ?? IMO, we can not simply say, since

both schools are using the same terminologies, the purports & purpose are

also same...At the worst, it is as good as saying both buddhism & advaita

are one and the same since there are somany 'common terminologies' have

been exchanged mutually between these two schools!!!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

July 27, 2009

Namaste Shri Subbu-ji and others,

This is some excerpt from Swami Satprakshananda's " Methods of Knowledge "

pages 330. Parts of my message marked with > are from the book. My questions

and comments follow.

> According to Madhvacharya, God (paramAtman), the individual selves and the

> prakRiti (the potential cause of the physical and the psychical universe),

> with their file-fold differeces are, ultimately real. The differences

> between God and the individual self, between God and prakRiti, between the

> individual self and the prakRiti, between one individual self and another,

> between one category of prakRiti and another endure forever [1].

What is the nature of this endurance in " endure forever " ? How can it be

reconciled with the two definitions we have of brahman and maya. namely that

(i) brahman alone exists in all three periods of time.

(ii) mAya has no existance in any of the three periods of time. As far as I

know, this is Madhusudana's Advaita-Siddhi.

> But the sole independent entity is God (paramAtman) [2]. Individual selves

> and prakRiti (manifest or unmanifest) have no existence apart from Him

> [3].

[2] is obviously the same as advaitin's brahman, assuming it is a nirguNa.

What if it is talking about saguNa brahman?

[3] is obviously the same as *one* definition of mAya, when a positive

nature is given to it. But, this is not the only one, as far as I know.

There are texts which state its abhAva-nature. How can these be reconciled?

> Thus Madhva's view is different from the pluralism of nyaaya-vaiSheshika

> on the one hand and from the dualism of sAMkhya-yoga on the other. It is

> dualism as opposed to non-dualism of Sankara. Professor Hiriyanna thus

> differentialtes the dualism of Madhva from the non-dualism of Sankara:

>

> " If the Advaita explains the prevailingly absolutist standpoint of

> Upanishadic teaching by postulating only one reality and explaining the

> rest of the universe as its appearance, the dvaita [of Madhva] does the

> same by postulating God as the only supreme entity and explaining the rest

> as altogether dependent upon him. " [4]

[4] Is dependency on brahman enough? Do the svarUpa and tatastha lakshaNa-s

of brahman have anything to do with the the two point of views here? Can

someone explain?

praNAms to all advaitins

Ramakrishna

July 27, 2009

[same message as earlier, some errors in transliteration corrected,

with apologies to Sanskrit lovers!]