
PHILOSOPHY OF DVAITA VEDANTA


INTRODUCTION:

Sripad Madhvacarya, the propounder of `Dvaita' system of vedanta philosophy
defines two principal ideas of `being' in his Ontology - REALITY and
INDEPENDENCE [Being is simply the fundamental category of thought which
denotes everything and cannot, therefore, specially denote anything, - in
other words, connotes nothing]. The former presents the idea of reality
expressed in space-time relations, pertaining to the world of matter and
souls. The latter is the higher aspect of reality which is characteristic of
Deity alone. The criterion of reality according to Madhva is that it should
be unsuperimposed  (`anaropitam') and given as an object of valid knowledge,
as existing at some point of time and in some place. These two ideas are
complementary and are implicit in Madhva's definition of Reality (`tattvam')
given by him as `prameyam.' Reality in the ordinary sense of the term may
consist in one or more of the three aspects of existence, consciousness and
activity.

Though existence is thus `reality,' Madhva recognizes that its highest
expression must be metaphysical independence of every other form of existence
in finite reality, in respect of its being, powers and activity. Everything
in finite reality is therefore grounded in the Independent Reality, known as
Brahman and needs it for its being and becoming.
While existence in space and time is thus reality and is possessed by
the world of matter and souls, there must be something more than mere
existence, having metaphysical independence or substantiality in its own right
which may be designated as the highest real or the philosophical Absolute
which would be the ultimate expression of all else. Such independent reality
should be immanent in the universe, whence the latter could derive and draw
its sustenance. Without presupposing such a basic and transcendental reality
that would have to be immanent in the world, there would be chaos and disorder
in the universe.

However, Madhva's chief ontological classification of `being' is into
principles viz. `svatantra' (Independent Reality) and `paratantra' (Dependent
Reality). The term `Reality' represents three primary data: the thinking self,
a world of external realities and indications of an Infinite Power rising
above them.

In Madhva's conclusions of Dvaita metaphysics reached by the evidence of
`pratyaksa' `anumana' and `sabda pramana' this infinite power is that Supreme
and Independent Principle which does not depend on any other for its own
nature and existence, self-awareness or for becoming an object of knowledge
to the thinking selves for the free and unfettered exercise of its own powers.
This `svatantra-tattva' (independent principle) is called God or `Brahman' or
`Isvara.' Though Brahman can do very well without Prakrti or Purusa (Dependent
Realities), it prefers, in its infinite glory and inexorable will, `to do with
them.' Such dependence (apeksa) of Brahman on things which are in themselves
dependent on It, is no mark of inferiority or limitation.

The dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is in the sense
that both are functioning at His will, which is the essential condition and
sustaining principle that invests them with their reality and without which
they would be but void names and bare possibilities. The dependent reals (as
Madhva admits the plurality of the selves), by their very nature, can have no
absolute or unlimited jurisdiction over one another and are distinct from
Brahman. The individual souls and their material environment are not
independent. Madhva brings these eternal and uncreated substances under
the power of Supreme Being i.e., God as `svatantra,' occupies the central
position, with existent realities like matter and souls keeping their
legitimate position under Him. Thus `svatantra' and `paratantra' are
the fundamental presuppositions of Madhva's philosophy which aim at
understanding the metaphysical dependence of all finite reality comprising
the `Cetana' and `Acetana' world upon One Infinite, Indepentent Reality. Here
Madhva points out that we have no right to deny reality to the world of matter
and souls, simply because they are not independent or do not always exist in
the same form. But they are there, have been there and will be there though
ever changing and depending on Brahman.

Sri Madhva puts forward the idea of `Bimba-pratibimba-bhava' (Original and
Reflection) to illustrate the true nature of the relationship between
`svatantra' and `paratantra.' The relationship of these two is of unilateral
dependence of all finite reality on the Independent principle, for its
existence, knowledge, knowability, and activity (`satta,' pratiti, and
`pravrtti'). The relationship is not unreal or reciprocal dependence; rather
the world cannot exist without God as it owes its very power of existence,
functioning etc., to God and derives them from Him. The (symbolic) relation
of Bimba-pratibimba-bhava as conceived by Madhva would be permanent and true
of all states of the jivatman and not merely as passing one, true of samsara
alone. There will be no destruction of the Pratibimba so long as the contact
of `upadhi is intact. The function of an Upadhi (medium) is to manifest
the Pratibimba. In the present case, it is the pristine nature of
the `Jivasvarupa' itself as `Cit' that would suffice, according to Madhva, to
manifest itself to itself in its true nature of metaphysical dependence on
Brahman and of being endowed with a measure of similarity of attributes as
part of the meaning of the word (`pratibimba') with its Original (Brahman)
without calling to aid the services of any external medium (`bahyopadhi').


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
depedent. Between matter and souls, the former is of a lesser grade of
reality. It is only in this sense that the `degrees' of reality is explained
in this system. The reality of things is space and involves the differences
in name, form, attributes, relations, and tendencies. These manifold
differences are generally classified under these heads :

(1) Sajatiya or difference of one thing from others of its own kind,
(2) Vijatiya or difference from those of another kind, and
(3) Svagata or internal distinctions within "an organic whole."

The last one is not admitted by Madhva in its absolute sense. In the sphere
of other two differences he has defined a scheme of "five-fold Difference"
(`Pancabheda'):

(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 "Prapanca."
It is real and eternal.


EPISTEMOLOGY (The Theory Of Pramana)

As the philosophical enquiry aims at acquiring information regarding Reality,
of which definite and valid knowledge is possible, all our experience of truth
(reality) has to be ascertained on the basis of some objective standards by
which they are judged. Because human experience being at times vitiated by
illusions, it becomes necessary to define truth in experience so as to enable
us to distinguish it from the false. Epistemology deals with an investigation
into the means of such valid knowledge viz., the quest for an ultimate basis
of certainty of all experience and knowledge.

The philosophical inquiry is the testing of truth in the light of proofs.
Madhva accepts in his theory of knowledge three pramanas or means of valid
knowledge. "A pramana is what comprehends an object of knowledge as it is"
or is the means of such comprehension. Pramana, according to Madhva, is not
merely the means of correct knowledge but "truth" itself. He defines Pramana,
compactly and comprehensively as `Yathartham.' This definition covers both
valid knowledge and the means thereof.

There are three means of valid knowldege: Pratyaksa, Anumana and Sabda.

PRATYAKSA or sense perception is defined as the knowledge produced by
the right type of contact (`sannikarsa') between "flawless" sense organs and
their appropriate objects.

Flawless reasoning is defined as ANUMANA. Inference is based on
the rememberance of Vyapti (concomittance) between Hetu (probans) and Sadhya
(probandum).

Flawless word, conveying valid sense, is "agama" or SABDA. This Sabda pramana
is divided into Pauruseya and Apauruseya. The Vedic literature is regarded as
`Apauruseya' and the Smritis, Puranas and other works based on Vedic authority
are accepted as Pauruseya Agama.

The term flawlessness (`nirdosatva') applies to every Pramana. It refers to
specific conditions under which alone the Pramanas become valid means of
knowledge. In the case of Pratyaksa, the right kind of rapprochement between
the sense-organs and the object as well as other conditions of suitable
distance, angle of observation, adequate light and so on are meant to be
conveyed by the term `nirdosa.' These conditions are applicable to the object,
the sense organs and their contact as well. Perception becomes faulty through
excessive remoteness, nearness or smallness of objects or of intervening
obstructions or being mixed up with things similar or through being
overshadowed by them. Knowledge, arising when all these conditions of
flawlessness are fulfilled, is bound to be true and valid: `Yathartham.'


Other Pramanas like `ARTHAPATTI' (presumption) which shows a way out in
cases of apparent conflict between two facts (for eg. Given that Mr. X is
alive, if he is not at home, he must be presumed to be out somewhere),
UPAMANA, a means of establishing similarity between two things, ANUPALABDHI
(non-apprehension) is a means by which non-existence of an object is known
etc. are not considered as separate Pramana but brought under inference,
perception, or verbal testimony, according to the conditions of each case.

MEMORY is admitted as a pramana or souce of valid knowledge, by Madhva.
He brings Memory under Pratyaksa and considers it as a direct perception by
the mind (`Manasa-Pratyaksa'). Its validity cannot, he says, be treated as
merely inferential. Memory is defined as the direct apprehensions of mind
penetrating into past.


THE THEORY OF VALIDITY:

Pramanas give rise to valid knowledge of things "as they are in fact."
Validity is generally defined in terms of correspondence with objective
reality. Thus `Pramana' means `Yathartham'; or what comprehends a thing as
it is. Knowledge carries its own proof.


THE THEORY OF SAKSI:

Though Madhva accepts that validity is intrinsic to Pramana, defined as
`Yathartham,' he does not rule out the possibility of error in experience.
Under ideal conditions, error will have no chance. But the actual conditions
of life being what they are, error cannot altogether be eliminated.

Sense organs (being materially constituted), when vitiated by flaws, give
rise to invalid knowledge or misapprehension of knowledge. Our experience
shows that we do not become convinced of the validity of every kind of
knowlege that comes to us through the sensory and mental channels
(`Vrtti-Jnana') and which are also at times open to error. As knowledge, by
itself, is `jada' (insentient) as a modification of the `antahkarana' and
therefore incapable of self-revelation, the necessity of some other principle
by which the knowledge itself and its validity could be intuited, should be
admitted. Such a principle is `Saksi' or `Svarupendriya' of the "knowing
Self," which being `Caitanyarupa' (conscious by nature) is capable of being
both `Svaprakasaka' and `Paraprakasaka.' Both knowledge and its validity are,
thus grasped by the Saksi, in the ultimate analysis. The fact that some of
our apprehensions are found to be correct and others eroneous could only be
explained on the basis of the acceptance of Saksi. Saksi (truth-determining
principle) is equipped with an inherent capacity to know the true from
the false. The verdict of Saksi is flawless and must be regarded as true and
valid for all time, because the perception and judgements of the Saksi are
of the essence of pure consciousness and therefore self-luminous and flawless
in regard to their nature and content of validity. In other words,
the validity of knowledge is, like the fact of knowledge, apprehended by Saksi
itself, directly. Madhva establishes the infallibility of Saksi in respect of
its judgements of validity. If, however, the direct experiences of the Saksi
are proved to have been illusory experiences, either by Scripture or by some
sort of transcendental perception, later it would simply mean that the Saksi
has been mistaken in its earlier judgement about their factual reality.

Thus Madhva makes two points (1) that in all cases of knowledge, the fact
of the knowledge is established not by the knowledge itself; but by
the evidence of Saksi. The reason for this is that all Vrtti-jnana (mental
and sensory) is material i.e., insentient in essence and has no power to
reveal its own existece.; (2) that such Vrtti-jnana can by no means, manifest
its own "validity to itself." Therefore it necessitates a non-material form
of knowledge to do this. Here is where Saksi comes into picture, which is not
something other than the Atman. Saksi in Madhva's epistemology, is the name
of the spiritual sense organ (`Svarupendriya') of the Self through which it
intuits its experiences. The Saksi, as an instrument of knowledge and
validation, is not something extraneous to the knowing self or Pramata.
The distinction of Saksi into `Svarupa' and `Indriya" (self and organ) is
only one of reference and not of essence.

Madhva thus postulates a new principle of truth-determination in epistemology
in the form Saksi, as the ultimate criterion of truth which is infallible
and intrinsically valid. Its reasons are:
      
(1) that it alone can be the ultimate guarantor of the validity of all
    Pramanas,
(2) that is the logical fulfilment and culmination of any really
    self-complete theory of knowledge, and
(3) that it is the only means of intuitive perception of certain supersensuous
    categories like Time, Space, the nature of self and its attributes,
    the mind and its modes, all knowledge of pleasures and pain, etc.


THE CONCEPT OF VISESAS:

This deals with the problem of the relation between substance and attribute.
Madhva contributes the idea - the concept of visesas - to the treatment of
this philosophical problem. He accepts a relation of `colourful identity'
(`savisesabheda') in respect of coessential attributes and difference-cum-
identity (`bhedabheda') in the case of transient attributes.
He made a striking effort to rise above the `dualism' of substance and
attributes and combines them into a homogeneous whole that admits, however,
of logical, conceptual and linguistic distinction, wherever necessary,
through the self-differentiating capacity of substances themselves, to be
known as "Visesas" or relative particulars.

These Visesas are ubiquitous and are not confined to material substances.
They exist among sentients as well, including the Supreme Being. In sentient
beings, these Visesas, whether manifested or not, are identical with their
substrata; while in regard to insentients, attributes which are co-eternal
would be identical with the substances (and distinguishable by Visesas); while
changing or impermanent ones would be different-cum-identical with their
substances. The whole question has been very clearly expounded by Jayatirtha:
"Visesa also is of two kinds as pertaining to sentient beings. Some of these
are `produced' and some are `eternal.' Though the Visesa as constituting
the nature of a sentient person is eternal, it is spoken of as being
`produced' by reason of its becoming manifested at times and remaining
unmanifested at other times. In the same way, Visesas pertaining to insentient
things are also two fold in their nature. The substance as such is
the material cause of the Visesas in an insentient thing. Though the Visesas
co-exist with the substance, as partaking of its nature, still a distinction
can be made of them. In respect of insentient reals some Visesas are produced
as effects and some others last as long as the thing itself lasts.

Visesa is thus the peculiar characteristic or potency of things which makes
description and talk of difference possible, where as a matter of fact only
identity exists. Visesas should not be mistaken for new or additional
attributes of things; it is the "power of things in themselves" which, through
an underlying identity of essence, enables us to distinguish:
(i) a particular from its universal;
(ii) a quality from its substance;
(iii) motion or power or energy from things possessing them;
(iv) the Svarupa from the Svarupin and Svarupatvam.

Madhva holds the view that it would be impossible to establish any adequate
theory of the relation between substance and attributes without invoking
the aid of Visesas, which are also called `Svarupavisesas' in order to show
that they are not "other than" the substance. There are three possible ways
in which the relation of substance and attributes is generally conceived viz.
(i) that they are "different" from each other (`atyantabhinna'),
(ii) "absolutely identical with each other" (`abhinna'),
(iii) "both identical and different" (`bhinnabhinna').
But, Madhva holds a fourth view of `Savisesabheda' (identity based on Visesa)
as only accepted view while rejecting the above three. Difference between
substance and attributes must be accepted not as being absolutely identical
with the terms but "identical with a qualification" (`Savisesabheda').

The function of Visesas, in Madhva's philosophy, is not merely to distinguish,
but to unify the part and the whole.

Conclusion: The purpose `visesa' which is introduced in Madhva's system is to
explain "the appearance of `bheda' where there is none." This concept
distinguishes a quality from a substance and a part from the whole. Between
a substance and its quality or between a whole and its parts there is no
difference. The difference appears on account of `visesa.' For example, one
cannot perceive any difference between the cloth and its whitness, but he does
perceive the `visesa' (particularity) of the cloth. If there were difference
between cloth and whiteness, then there would be difference between
the difference and cloth, and between difference and whiteness, and so on
"ad infinitum." Visesa of Madhva, characterises the eternal as well as
non-eternal substance. In case of God, the principle of `visesa' is employed
to reconcile his unity with plurality of his qualities and powers (`saktis'),
and the plurality of His Divine body, Divine dress, Divine abode, and
the like.


THE ONTOLOGICAL SCHEME OF MADHVA'S PHILOSOPHY:


                                 REALITY
                                    |
                                    |
                          ----------------------
                          |                    |
                          |                    |
                       SVATANTRA           PARATANTRA
                      (Independent)        (Dependent)
                        NARAYANA               |
                                               |
                                               |
   ---------------------------------------------
   |                                    |
   |                                    |
 BHAVA                                ABHAVA
(Existent)                        (Non-existent)
   |                                    |
   |                                    |
   |                   ---------------------------------------
   |                   |                |                    |
   |                   |                |                    |
   |             PRAGABHAVA      PRADHVAMSABHAVA         SADABHAVA
   |            (Antecedent)      (Subsequent)           (Absolute)
   |   (the absence of a thing  (the absence of a thing  (the absence of
   |   before its making)        after it is destroyed)  horse's horn etc.)
   |
   |
   |
   ----------------------------------------------
     |                                          |
     |                                          |
  CETANA                                      ACETANA
(Sentient)                                (non-sentient)
     |                                          |
     |                                          |
     |          ------------------------------------------------
     |          |                  |                           |
     |          |                  |                           |
     |        NITYA             ANITYA                    NITYA-ANITYA
     |     (eternal         (destructible)          (eternal in one aspect
     |     unchanging)             |                 and changing in another
     |        VEDAS                |                        aspect)
     |                             |                           |
     |                             |                           |
     |                             |          --------------------------
     |                             |          |           |            |
     |                             |          |           |            |
     |                             |        PURANAS      KALA        PRAKRTI
     |                             |
     |                  -----------------------
     |                  |                     |
     |                  |                     |
     |               ASAMRITA             SAMSRITA
     |           (having minimum     (throughly modified)
     |            modification)               |
     |                  |                     |
     |                  |                     |
     |              24 TATTVAS            BRAHMANDA
     |                              (Universe of the worlds
     |              [10 senses,     and everything within it)
     |                5 bhutas,
     |                5 sense objects,
     |                1 manas,
     |                1 buddhi,
     |                1 ahankara tattva,
     |                1 mahat tattva]
     |
     |
     |
     ----------------------------------------------------------
                                 |                            |
                                 |                            |
                          TOUCHED BY MISERY          UNTOUCHED BY MISERY
                             OR SAMSARA                OR SAMSARA
                              (Jeevas)                 (Goddess Lakshmi)
                                 |
                                 |
            ----------------------------------------
            |                                      |
            |                                      |
          MUKTA                              NOW IN MISERY
  (liberated from misery                           |
       or samsara)                                 |
            |                                      |
            |                                      |
  -----------------------------------------        |
  |         |         |          |        |        |
  |         |         |          |        |        |
DEVAS     RISHIS    PITRIS      PAS     NARAS      |
                                                   |
                                                   |
           -----------------------------------------
           |                                     |
           |                                     |
    ELIGIBLE FOR MOKSA                     INELIGIBLE FOR MOKSA
(Sattvikas, five kinds as                        |
     muktas above)                               |
                                                 |
                                                 |
                                                 |
                  -----------------------------------------------
                  |                                             |
                  |                                             |
          ELIGIBLE FOR ETERNAL                        ETERNALLY IN SAMSARA
             DAMNATION                                     (Rajasas)
              (Tamasas)                                (men neither good
                  |                                         nor bad)
                  |
                  |
     ------------------------------------------
     |            |             |             |
     |            |             |             |
 DAITYAS       RAKSASAS      PISACHAS      WORST MEN
     (Already damned)          (Now in samsara)



DEFINITIONS:


BRAHMAN:

As already pointed out, Brahman, the only Independent Real is the highest
ontological principle of Madhva's philosophy. Brahman is possessed of all
adequate and unrestricted powers in regard to the Cit and Acit and who is all
knowing. He is the One who controls the Cit and Acit (sentient and insentient
reals) which are of different nature from Him. The Independent Being must,
necessarily, be infinite in Its attributes because an Independent Being cannot
be finite and limited in any sense.

(i) Brahman as a person: The Supreme Brahman is a Person who has a character
of His own. The term personality as applied to Godhead denotes, according to
Madhva, not merely the existence of self-consciousness so conceived, but also
that the entire universe is to be thought of as an experience and not as
an abstract content. This Divine Personality is endowed with the faculties of
cognition, conation and activity. God has His own body and limbs, a spiritual
Form with its own instruments of knowledge and activity, which is all one of
knowledge and bliss. Madhva identifies Brahman with Visnu and adores Rama and
Krsna as His incarnations but does not show any inclination for the worship
of Gopala-Krsna and Radha.

(ii) Attributes of Brahman: Madhva's conception of God emphasises two aspects
of Divinity, the perfection of being (`sarvagunapurnatvam') and freedom from
all limitations (`sarva-dosa-gandha-vidhuratvam'). These two aspects cover and
exhaust all that is great and good in the idea of God. He is Infinite
(`purna'), of perfect bliss, the Real of reals (`satyasya-satyam'), eternal
of eternal (`nityo nityanam'), the Sentient of all sentients
(`cetanas cetananam'), the source of all reality, consciousness and activity
(`satta-pratiti-pravrtti-nimittam') in the finite. The attributes and actions
of Brahman are the same as itself. They are not different. There is no mutual
difference, either, among them. He is all pervasive (a-tata) and all
perceiving (matr). All the several attributes which partake with the nature of
Brahman are inseparable from Him and from one another.

(iii) Cosmic activities of Brahman:  The cosmic powers of the Supreme are
eight in number: creation, preservation, dissolution, control, enlightenment,
obscuration, bondage and release. Madhva holds that the Supreme Being itself
(identified with Visnu) acts through the instrumentality of other Gods
(of limited jurisdiction over particular aspects of cosmic activities) to
conduct the cosmic activities. It is Isvara Himself who directs properly,
the various potencies of Nature and of the souls for production, growth,
development, etc., which are always dependent on Him. The Prakrti, Purusas
and their respective capacities, their very presence, cognizability and
functioning, - all these are controlled by Isvara, eternally, through His
eternal power. Just as non-eternal things are ordained by the eternal will
of Isvara to be non-eternal, similarly, eternal substances too are ordained
by His will to be eternal. The jivas, their karma, categories, kala, sruti,
kriya etc., all these exist, function and are cognized only by His will and
pleasure. They have existence in His despite. Hence, the very reality,
existence, etc., of Prakrti and other entities depend on His control. He
enters into Prakrti and energizes it to transform in various ways and assumes
many forms to control such modifications.

(iv) Manifestations of Brahaman: The Supreme Lord puts on a multiplicity
of forms to evolve the universe through different stages. These forms, though
innumerable, are nevertheless identical with one another, save for their
numerical distinction. The first in the order of Divine manifestations is
the quaternion of Vasudeva, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Sankarsana, popularly
known as the (Catur-) Vyuha, credited with redemptive, creative, sustaining
and destructive functions. The Supreme further differentiates itself in
ten (familiar Avatars) or twelve, hundred, thousand and so on. These personal
manifestation of the Lord are spoken of as Suddha-Srsti, in `Pancaratra'
terminology. They are also designataed as Vyuhas in a general sense.
     
Madhva accepts four kinds of manifestaions of God (though he does not use
this nomenclature):

1. Vyuhas, 2. Avataras, 3. Transcendent (`para Vasudeva'), 4. Immanent

In Madhva's view these various manifestations are absolutely on a par with
one another. There is no gradation among them in respect of powers or
potentialities. Madhva is vehemently opposed to the idea of making any
invidious distinctions among these manifestations of God or putting some on
a higher pedestal than others. "There is no room for `Svagatabhededa' in
the Supreme" (`neha nanasti kincana). It is the same Infinite in every
manifestation. The Avataras are on a different footing and are concernd with
specific functions like `Bala karya,' `Jnana karya' etc. Their number exceeds
ten as commonly recognized. There are Avataras like Hamsa, Datta and Hari,
not included in the popular list of ten. To Madhva all Avataras are of equal
merit and status. There is no question of degree of fulness among them, no
"partial" and "complete" Avataras. He takes his uncompromising stand on
the authority of the Upanisads and Pancaratric texts and rejects the commonly
accepted interpretation of the `Bhagavata' text: "krsnas tu bhagavan svayam"
as inappropriate on philosophical and syntactic grounds. He has thus no
partiality or preference for any particular Avatara of God and treats "all of
them as equal in rank, attributes and powers."


JIVAS (ATMAN):

Souls are conceived in Madhva's system as finite centres 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 material; therefore, they
are called conditioned reflected counterparts (`sopadhika-pratibimbamsa')
of Visnu.
  
(i) Plurality of Selves: Madhva holds the doctrine of multiplicity of selves.
The basis for this is the intrinsic diversity of their essences, which he
shows to be "inevitable presupposition of the theory of Karma." It is accepted
that the inequalities of individual equipment and endowment are regulated by
one's past life and its Karma. But, by its very nature, the Karma theory would
be powerless to explain the existence of such inequalities, in the remotest
past, without recourse to the hypothesis of an intrinsic peculiarity (`anadi
visesa') that is uncaused. It is this `anadivisesa' or `Svabhavabheda' says
Madhva, that distinguishes one soul from another. This is the decisive
contribution which Madhva has made to the interpretation of the problem
of life and its diversitis. He has thus gone beyond the principle of Karma,
unerringly, to the " Svabhavabheda" (intrinsic or essential differences in
the nature of the beings). Similarly, 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.
 
The theory of Svarupabheda of souls elaborated by Madhva is, thus, the only
solution of the problem of plurality of selves, their freedom and free will.

(ii) Tripartite classification 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 `Svarupataratamya,' which
comes out all the more clearly in the released state, where the souls realize
their true status. `Jiva-traividhya' or tripartite classification of
"Unreleased Souls" into (1) `Muktiyogya' (salvable), (2) Nitya-samsarin
(ever-transmigrating) and (3) `Tamoyogya' (damnable) are the allied doctrines
of `Svarupataratamya' of souls. This theory of Madhva, is intended to justify
and reconcile the presence of evil with divine perfection.

Sri Madhva also speaks about the intrinsic differences existing among
the "Released" souls. Hiranyagarbha among the released (and in Samsara too) is
occupying 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 pervasive), the Sages are `Antahprakasa'
and the rest `Bahihprakasa.'

The doctrine of intrinsic gradation among souls would follow as a matter of
course, once the principle of their plurality is admitted. Many philosophical
topics related to the law of Karma, the problem of good and evil, behaviour of
free will displayed in the case of individual jivas etc. can be solved only by
the acceptance of the above theories of Sri Madhva.
The recognition of special class of souls called `Nityasuris' (as in
the system of Ramanuja) and the class called `Nityasamsarins' will be
inexplicable without the acceptance of an intrinsic gradation of souls into
ordinary and "elect" and so on. The higher position of Sesitva assigned to
"Sri" in respect of Nityasuris also points to a natural gradation among souls.
Similarly the existence of Nityamuktas like Visvaksena, Garuda, Ananta etc.
who always remain free from Samsara (accepted by the Visistadvaitins) and
the high place assigned to Brahma among the gods (by Vedic and Puranic
literature) are to be highlighted in this connection as their spiritual
excellence and superiority over other souls.
 
Gods and men are not equal in their basic nature and powers, or in the innate
tendencies for good or bad, which determine their future development.
The doctrine of intrinsic gradation of souls is thus a resoned and reasonable
hypothesis of human nature and destiny, suggested by the moral law and
supported by reason, revelation and experience. Madhva holds that it can not
be satisfactorily accounted for the presence and continuation of evil in
a world created and ruled by a most perfect Being unless it is taken to be
natural to some as goodness is to others. Without such a fundamental division
of human nature, the disparities of life reflected in the seemingly unfair
distribution of pleasure and pain and opportunities for moral growth are not
satisactorily explained. The law of Karma cannot satisfy the quest for
an ultimate explanation of such bewildering enexplicabilities. It cannot
explain why given two alternatives of good or evil, certain persons show
a marked preference or tendency towards the one and others to the opposite.
Moral worth, knowledge, works, experience, heredity, opportunities, culture
- none of these explanations of diversity solves the riddle pushed to its
starting point. The final solution can only be found in the inherent nature
of beings.
    
Madhva and his commentators have cited many texts from the Vedic and
post-Vedic literature (from Gita XVI 3, 5, 6, 18, 20; VIII. 2; 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, as reference to their basic nature of Caitanya going
beyond the play of Prakrti nad its gunas: "yo yac chraddhah sa eva sah"
(Gita XVII. 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-luminous (`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.


JAGAT:

Madhva admits the reality of the world experience on the basis of perceptual,
rational and scriptural grounds. The material universe, according to Madhva,
is neither a transformation (`parinama') of Brahman nor a production. It is
merely an actualization of what is in the womb of matter and souls by
the action of Brahman. The creation of the Universe is a continuous process -
a constant dependence of the world on the Supreme for all its determinations.

Madhva's theory of the constitution of matter and the evolution of the world
is based on the `Samkhya' metaphysics of Upanisads, the Epics and Puranas. He
quotes profusely from Mahabharata, the Bhagavata and other Puranas and from
the vast literature of the Pancaratras.
He accepts the doctrine of evolution of matter (Prakrti) as a follower of
the Epic Samkhya. He accepts Prakrti as eternal insentient primordial stuff
dependent on Brahman on the authority of Upanisadic, Epic and Puranic Samkhya
cosmology. It is directly and indirectly the material cause (`upadhana
karana') of the world. It is the direct material cause of time and the three
qualities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas and indirectly of Mahat, Ahamkara etc.
It is both eternal and pervasive; but not unlimited. The three gunas are
supposed to be differentiated at the beginning of creation, in the ratio of
4:2:1. The evolution of other forms of matter takes place on account of
the disturbance in their equipose which gives rise to the 24 principles
commonly recognized, viz. Mahat, Ahamkara, Buddhi, Manas, ten sensory organs,
five sense-objects and five great elements. Mahat is the first and finest
evolute of matter and energy. Ahankara is the principle of individuation,
Buddhi that of discrimination, and Manas of thought.
The principle of Ahamkara is divided into three classes of Vaikarika,
Taijasa, and Tamasa. From Taijasa the ten sense organs are produced, and
the five sense objects (`visayas') and the elements are the products of
Tamasa-Ahamkara. The `tanmatras' stand for qualitatively distinct and
irreducible sense-qualities with a definite leaning towards their appropriate
objects.
These 24 evolutions of Prakrti are the constituents of the microcosm and
the macrocosm of the entire Brahmanda. Madhva gives a proper reorientation
to this theory of material evolution by linking it up with a systematic
hierarchy of presiding deities from top to bottom. It is under the constant
supervision and guidance of these "Abhimani-devatas" (or "Tattvabhimanins")
that all material transformations and psychophysical functions are carried on.
The Supreme Brahman itself is ultimately behind all these activities and of
each and every one of them.

The 3 forms of matter, viz. Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, are specially controlled
by the 3 aspects of Cetana Prakrti, viz. Sri, Bhu and Durga.
 
Involution (dissolution) takes place by the merger of the effects in their
causes in the reverse order of evolution. This applies to the Tattvabhimani-
Devas also, both in Samsara and in release.


BONDAGE (of Jivas in Samsara):

Madhva points out that the reason for the bondage of the souls is due to
the Divine will of the Supreme. Even though the bonds and impurities of
the souls are not their essential nature (`svarupa'), the bonds of the souls
are real. He gives a very purposeful explanation of the rationale behind God's
putting the souls in bondage and through the necessary process of
transmigration. Madhva calls his theory of the origing of bondage as
"Svabhava-ajnana vada" or the theory of the souls' ignorance of their own
true nature and of their dependence on the Supreme Brahman. Madhva contends
that even though the Jiva is a self-luminous being, still, it is not
inconceivable that he should be subject to ignorance of his own true nature
and of the nature of God and of his true relation to Him, as he is
a dependent and finite being. Since Jivas are, by definition, "dependent" and
also endowed with aspects (`sa-visesa') it is very reasonably contended that
while "some aspects" of the self (such as his existence) are "not obscured"
yet others like the manifestation or experience of its `Svarupananda'
(essential bliss) "remain obscured" in samsara. Thus bondage is of the nature
of Ignorance.

As Jiva's nature is one of knowledge (`jnanasvarupa'), this ignorance which,
in spite of his self-luminosity (`svaprasatva'), is able to obscure a portion
of that knowledge etc., of his own nature and of God cannot be treated as
penetrating his very nature. Yet, if it is external to him, how does it
obscure his Svarupa, at least in some respects? To explain this knotty point,
Madhva introduces the will of God or his inscrutable power
(`acintyadbhutasakti') which is also called by the name of `Maya' (or His
Maya) of which the entanglement in Prakrti is only next stage.

Thus, according to Madhva, the obscuration of the soul leading to bondage is,
in the last analysis, to referred to the inscrutable power of God, who
actuates the latent power of Prakrti known by various names such as Maya and
Avidya in the Sastras. Though it is in the nature of Maya to obscure, yet
the intervention of the Lord is "necessary" for its functioning as a principle
of obscuration, in so far as Prakrti and its powers are insentient (jada) and
therefore "asvatantra" (incapable of independent initiative). This obscuration
of the essential nature of Jivas cannot be ascribed due to the influence of
Kama, Karma, etc. alone; for these are themselves the effects of earlier
causes and thus are "dependent principles" and there is no reason why the soul
should have succumbed to their attraction, surrendering his self-luminosity.
In any case, they would not be an adequate explanation of the obscuration of
the self, felt even in Susupti and Pralaya, when there is no operation of Kama
or Karma, Vasanas, etc. Hence, it is obvious that there is some other
principle (over and above all these) that is preventing the self from
realizing its true nature, in full, here and now. This is the principle of
Prakrti (Jada) which presses down Jivas from beginningless eternity and
obscures their natures at the will of the Lord and not by its own power, as
already explained. Thus, Madhva finds the ultimate explanation of the bondage
of souls in the power of Prakrti controlled by the inscrutable and mysterious
Will of God. This is in complete accord with the views of great theistic
scriptures like the Gita (VII. 14), about origin of bondage.


SADHANA:

Since the soul's bondage is, in the last analysis, to be referred to
the Divine will obscuring the intrinsic self-luminosity of Jivas, its removal
and the illumination of the souls is also ascribed to the Divine will, in
the ultimate analysis, in Madhva's system.

[But, Madhva on the basis of scriptures (Brahmasutra II.3.33) ascribes jiva
the title of "doer" or `Karta.' He maintains that the human soul is the real
agent in all its actions even though he is not an absolutely independent
agent. The Jiva derives his ability to do things, metaphysically, from
the creator. For, God merely "enables" the Jiva to pursue a course of action,
not arbitrarily, but in relation to his former life and desires. He does not
"interfere" with the Jiva's decision in any way. He sustains but never
constrains (Gita 18.63). The Jiva chooses out of his free will a particular
line of action for good or for bad with sufficient foreknowledge of its moral
worth and has himself to thank for the consequences. He cannot, therefore,
blame anyone, least of all God, for the unpleasant consequences of his acts,
should he have chosen wrongly.]

The need for Sadhanas follows from the very fact that the bondage of souls in
Samsara has been continuing from time immemorial. This bondage is continuing
because of transmigration of souls. The aim of metaphysical inquiry is
the attainment of release through Divine grace. Therefore one has naturally
to think of the means of earning it. The sastras describe them as leading to
one another, in the following order: freedom from worldy attachment
(`Vairagya'), devotion to God (`Bhakti'), `Sravana'(study), `Manana'
(reflection), `Nididhyasana' (meditation) and `Saksatkara' (direct
realization).

Vairagya is defined as the non-attachment to the body and bodily pleasures
and cravings. This is the first step and primary requisite of a true aspirant.
It constitutes the essence of spiritual life.

Sravana is defined as the acquisition of the sense of the sacred texts under
the instruciton of competent teachers. It dispels ignorance about the subject
matter (`ajnananivrtti').

Manana is the systematic employment of the canons of textual interpretation
and logical examination with a view to arriving at a firm conviction that
the final interpretation of the Sastras thus arrived at is alone the correct
and unimpeachable one. Manana removes doubts (`samsaya') and misapprehension
(`viparyaya') and confirms the true import of the Sastras (`paroksa-tattva-
niscaya'). Nididhyasana or Dhyana (continuous meditation) leads to direct
realization (`darsana'). Sravana and Manana are thus subsidiary (`angabhuta')
to Nididhyasana which is the chief means (`angi') of Saksatkara.

Role of Guru: Madhva discusses the importance of a ideal Guru and
the importance of his grace in the final flowering of the spiritual
personality of the aspirant (`Sadhaka'). He emphasizes the point that
instruction and guidance of a competent Guru and his grace (`prasada') are
absolutely necessary for Sravana and Manana to bear fruit. He further says
that of the two viz., individual effort and the grace of the Guru, the latter
is to be deemed the more powerful factor and therefore indispensable for one's
spiritual realization. The emphasis of Guruprasada does not mean that
individual effort and the deserts of the aspirant do not count. They are
the foundations of one's spiritual progress; but Guruprasada is the crowing
point of this development.

A seeker is allowed to change his Guru if he secures another with a superior
spiritual illumination, provided the latter is able and inclined to impart
the full measure of grace and illumination that may be required for
the self-realization of the disciple. Where both the Gurus happen to be of
equal merit and disposition to grant the full measure of their grace,
qualifiying for illumination to the aspirant, the permission of the earlier
Guru shall have to be obtained before receiving instruction from the other
one.


Different Spiritual Disciplines:

The most prominent forms of Spiritual discipline are those going by the names
of Karmamarga, Jnanamarga and Bhaktimarga.

Karma Yoga, according to Madhva is the enlightened spiritual activity
(`niskamam jnanapurvam karma') by all, which cannot be binding in its
consequences. On the basis of Gita he establishes that it is neither
`pravrtti marga' (faithful performance of the round of Vedic sacrifices and
ritualistic rites prescribed by the Srutis and Smrtis with the expectation
of their rewards in this or in the next world and the adherence to the duties
of varna and asrama) nor `nivrtti marga' (abandonment of all Karma) but
performance of Karma in a spirit of devotion and vairagya is more important.
Even this type of performing `niskamakarma' is not to be admitted as anything
more than an accessory to spiritual realization. It is to be pursued for
the purpose of acquiring mental purification. The reason why Karma cannot be
treated as an independent means of release is that it is by nature,
irrepressibly found to be inexhaustible by the enjoyment of fruits.
The help of Jnana is, therefore, indispensable to destroy or neutralize
the latent effects of past Karma (Gita 4.37). Such a power of destroying
the accumulated load of past Karma, or rendering it nugatory is ascribed to
the actual vision (`aparoksajnana') of God, through `dhyana' (meditation).
Madhva, therefore, regards enlightened activity (`Niskamakarma') merely as
contributing to such knowledge through Vairagya. Madhva is thus clear that
disinterested activity carried on in a spirit of devotion to God is a powerful
incentive to the acquisition of knowledge which alone is the highest means of
release. Karma and Dhyana and others are just accessories to it.
          
Conception of Bhakti: Madhva has given a unique place to Divine grace in his
system, in making it the ultimate cause of self-realization. To attain
the grace of the Divine the sadhaka has to appease the Lord. This can only be
done by Bhakti as the deepest attachment to the Lord, deep-rooted and based
on a clear understanding of His greatness and majesty.
 
Bhakti is, thus, the steady flow of deep attachment to God, impregnable by any
amount of impediments and transcending the love of our own selves, our kith
and kin, cherished belongings, etc. and fortified by a firm conviction of
the transcendent majesty and greatness of God as the abode of all perfections
and free from all blemish and by an unshakable conviction of the complete
metaphysical dependence of everything else upon Him. When one is flooded by
such an intensive and all-absorbing love he gets completely immersed in
blissful contemplation of Him and is lost to all his surroundings. Such Bhakti
is necessary to manifest the natural and intrinsic relationship of
Pratibimbatva of the souls to God, which lies dormant in the state of bondage.

Since the function of Bhakti is to manifest the true relation of Jiva to
Brahman, it must naturally be properly informed about that true relation,
which presupposes a right knowledge of the majesty and greatness of God as
the one Svatantra. Hence, Bhakti has to be enriched by study, reflection and
concentration. Bhakti is, thus, not a mere wave of sentimentalism or
emotionalism, to Madhva. It is the outcome of patient study (`sravana') and
deep reflection. Madhva also demands a high degree of moral perfection from
the true devotee of God. He affirms that there can be no pure devotion to God
without a real sense of moral purity, sincerity of purpose and detachment to
worldly pleasures. One cannot serve two masters. True devotion to God would be
impossible without the cultivation of a natural distaste for the pleasures of
the world. It is one of the constituent elements of true devotion. Acara or
purity of life, in all respects is thus the only means of true devotion and
knowledge. Devotion without such purity will be a travesty. Complete control
of the passions of the flesh, calmness of mind, impartiality of conduct and
love of God are emphasized by Madhva as the prerequisites of devotion and
knowledge. This positive approach to God in its final accomplishment i.e love
of God free from all traces of erotic manifestations, which dominate in
certain forms of North Indian Vaisnavism like Jayadeva, Caitanya and Vallabha.
Madhva's conception of Bhakti avoids these emotional excesses and remains at
its exalted intellectual and spiritual level of firm philosophic devotion to
the Supreme Lord of the universe who is to be worshipped with loving
attachments as the Bimba of all Pratibimbas (Jivas). But it is no on that
account lacking in intensity of fervour and feeling. For Madhva has recognized
in the clearest terms that Bhakti is in essence an ineffable blending of
the emotion and the intellect. He gives expression to the intensity of his
love of God in its sublime and rapturous aspects in the opening and concluding
stanzas of his works. The possibilities of erotic devotion, as a means of
contacting the Divine, are not unknown to him. In his view, Kama-Bhakti or
erotic devotion is the special privilege of "Apsarasas and ought not to be
practiced by others."

Madhva speaks of 3 different types of devotees: (1) Uttama Bhaktas,
(2) Madhyama and (3) Adhama, according to the nature and intensity of devotion
characteristic of them.

`Taratamya' in Bhakti: Taratamya or gradational approach in the practice
of Bhakti is a necessary element of the doctrine of Bhakti as propounded by
Madhva. The devotional homage to the gods and the sages in the spiritual
hierarchy is not a matter of courtesy. It is a "must." The devas occupy
special position in the government of God's universe as `Tattvabhimanis' with
special cosmic jurisdiction delegated to them. The role of these Devas on
the implementation of the Sadhanas by human beings have been brought in
Madhva's commentary on the Upanisads and from the fading sources of Pancaratra
and other literature. On the basis of these materials, he holds that devotion
to God depends crucially on the grace of the Devas who are His first greatest
devotees. They are the highest order of Jnanayogis and our direct superiors,
protectors, guides and Gurus. We cannot think of God without their grace. It
is they who inspire our minds along right lines and turn them Godward and
enable us to know and worship Him by their presiding activity over the sense
organs, mind, buddhi etc. and bring our Sadhanas to fruition.

Stages of Bhakti: Madhva distinguishes 3 stages of Bhakti: (1) that which
"precedes" Paroksajnana (meditate knowledge of the Deity), (2) one that
"follows" it, and (3) a third that comes "after direct realization"
(`Aparoksajnana') and wins the absolute grace (`atyarthaprasada') of the Lord.
It is this final stage of Bhakti that fully manifests, by the grace of God,
the true relationship that exists between the Jiva and Brahman and completes
the fulfilment of realization viz. the full manifestation and enjoyment of
the intrinsic bliss of one's own self and the Majesty of the Lord. The last
one is an end in itself, this is the sublime nature of Bhakti. Thus in
Madhva's system there are two distinct phases of Bhakti, one operating at
the Sadhana or "preparatory level" and the other at Sadhya or the fundamental
level of Moksa itself. Pleased with the initial Bhakti of the Jivas, the Lord
bestows on them firm knowledge of His nature and attributes. He then reveals
Himself. Thereafter He inspires them with still more intensive devotion and
after showing Himself to the Bhaktas He cuts the knot of their Prakrtic
bondage. In the released state also, the Jivas remain under the Lord's control
imbued with unalloyed devotion to Him.

Place of grace in redemption: According to Madhva, this knowledge of God is
not a mere intellectual realization of the Deity. It is more a feeling of
deep attraction and attachment arising from the knowledge of Bimba-pratibimba-
bhava between God and soul and sustained by sense of spontaneous attraction
and affection flowing from it. Hence, in Bhakti, there is the element of
knowledge and attachment combined. In the last analysis, then, it is not pure
knowledge that puts an end to the bondage of souls, but the grace of God in
gracious acceptance of the soul's "surrender." "It is Divine grace that plays
the most decisive role in the final deliverance of the souls, according to
Madhva." Not by Karma, or Jnana or even Bhakti can remove the veil of
ignorance without the grace of the Lord withdrawing His obscuration of Jiva.

Aparoksa-jnana or God-Realization: In this final stage of Sadhana the Sadhaka
receives a direct vision of the Supreme Being. The Sadhaka is face to face
with the object of his meditation and intuits the Divine Form, which is his
archetype (Bimba). This is technically termed `Bimbaparoksa,' which is
the highest form of spiritual perception without which no one can hope to be
released. However this final stage of vision of the Lord is different from
vision of Dhyana wherein the form of Brahman is built up in the mind of
the Sadhaka. In Dhyana one sees only the reflection of Brahman in the `Citta.'
By Its presence in the reflection the Supreme Brahman confers the fruit of
meditation on the aspirant. The meditation of this reflected form of Brahman,
is like the worship of an image. It leads (gradually) to the actual vision of
the Lord, by His own grace.

Aparoksa-jnana is something which by its nature defies any more explicit
description. It is a flash-like revelation of the Supreme at the furtiom of
a long and arduous process of `sravana,' `manana,' and nididhyasana,' in
the fulness of absolute self-surrendering devotion to the Lord, as our Bimba.
Ultimately, it is He that must choose to reveal Himself, pleased by
the hungering love of the soul. The Pratibimba (soul) must turn in and see his
Bimba in himself. This is aparoksa.

After aparoksa state: Aparoksa marks the preliminary stage of release.
The journey's end is now fairly in sight; but not yet fully attained.
The Aparoksajnani, in Madhva's system corresponds to the "Jivan-mukta" of
other schools. But there is no destruction of Avidya or Prakrtic bondage yet.
To the Aparoksajnani, the prospect of Moksa is now "assured." But until
the subtle body of sixteen kalas, known as "Linga-Sarira," is disintegrated,
the Jiva is not freed from Prakrtic bondage. This comes at the end of
the working out of a portion of his "Prarabdha-Karma" (that portion of
the accumulated load of all past karma, which has begun already to go through)
by "bhoga" (not necessarily pleasant). Madhva holds out also a very assuring
prospect of the possible "Upamarda" mitigation of the effects of some portion
of "even" the Prarabdha Karma by the grace of God and release in its full
sense speeded up. The term Prarabdha Karma includes obviously the good and
the bad (`punya' and `papa'). Madhva introduces a subtler distinction in
the former, from the point of view of Aparoksa-jnani, as `ista' (desirable)
and `anista' (undesirable). The former is what conduces to deeper and deeper
manifestations of innate bliss in moksa. The latter is whatever is likely to
prolong the onset of complete release.

Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that final release should take place at
the destruction (by death) of that particular body in and through which
Aparoksa-jnana was attained. It depends on Prarabdha-karma. If its effects
have been worked out (in that body) there is no more delay; but if they have
not been, then he must pass through some more `lives' to work them out. This
is the position of Sastras on the point. But since law of Karma is not
independent of the Lord's will, Madhva interposes a saving clause in respect
of God's will, which nothing can limit. This may be called the "Vetoing power"
(`Upamarda') of the Lord excercised in His own grace.

Here, the "Upamarda" or devitalizing of the effects of Prarabdha Karma refers
to all evil Karma and such of the Punyakarma (or Punya-Prarabdha) that will
delay or retard Moksa, by producing agreeable defects for enjoyment in future
lives. But such Punya, as will enhance the `anandanubhava' in Moksa, is
"credited to the account" of the Aparoksa-jnani. This emphasizes that nothing
can possibly stand against God's will. Though normally not interfering with
the law of Karma, there are occasions in the careers of souls when He
benevolently intervenes to scotch individual Karma as such, when He feels that
it has had its day. This again brings out vividly the place and importance of
the concept of Grace in the Theism of Madhva. This is how Madhva understands
the statement that God grants His grace to man and it is through grace alone
that we can deserve to be saved from Samsara. To get God's grace upon oneself
is greater than to know God intellectually. Bhakti is emotional sublimation
in God. When intellectual perception melts into devotion we have Bhakti. When
such final stage of Bhakti is reached, after Aparoksa-vision, God intervenes
to neutralize a portion of Prarabdha even, and ushers in final Moksa.


MUKTI:

The doctrine of salvation is determined by the conception of the nature
of souls and God in any philosophical thought. Since Madhva establishes
Bhakti, not as a means to an end, but as an end itself, it follows that
the relation between the individual soul and the Supreme Being is not
something that is snapped in release. For, this relation is not something
that is extrinsic to the nature of the soul but something that is rooted in
the very nature and being (`svarupa') of the soul. Its destruction would mean
destruction of the Jiva. It is a unique relation, a spiritual bond which is
indestructible. Therefore Mukti is merely the shaking off what is extrinsic
to one's nature and reposing in one's own intrinsic nature. The intrinsic
spiritual relation between the human spirit and God is so dynamic in its
magnetism that the attraction of the latter becomes more fully manifested in
release than in Samsara. Indeed, it breaks through and fids expression there
in a thousand ways which are beyond our understanding and analysis from
`here.'

Madhva maintains that the realization of truth does not mean the abolition
of the plurality of life or the personality of selves, but only the removal
of the false sense of separateness and independence which is at the root of
Samsara. The attributes of the Jiva are inviolable in the same sense as
the Atman itself is indestructible. Moksa would not be worth having, if Atman
does not survive as a self-luminous entity there. Therefore Madhva lays great
stress on the survival of every individual personality, as such, in Moksa
(`muktir hitva anyatha rupam svarupena vyavasthitih').

In the positive aspect of the view of Moksa, Madhva holds it as a state of
supreme bliss. The first and foremost fact about Moksa is that it is accepted,
by common consent, as the highest "Purusartha" of man. For this reason, it
must be a state of unalloyed bliss; and this bliss must be "manifested," i.e.
capable of being actually felt and enjoyed with a full consciousness of being
"so enjoyed." This would naturally presuppose the survival of the one who is
to enjoy the experiences of this blessed state.

The supreme bliss in Moksa is not a stagnant state. Madhva, says that there
is scope for activity and full play of capabilities for everyone according to
one's abilities. Some of the released may rest in the contemplation of their
own blessedness, like Advaitic Brahman. Some may contrast their present with
their past and feel thankful for their deliverance. They may adore the majesty
of God and sing His Praises or worship Him in a thousand ways. Some may offer
sacrifices, if they wish. The only difference being that "nothing is
obligatory there." There is no "prescribed round of activites" or code of
conduct in Moksa, which means there is unlimited scope for spontaneous,
creative work of every kind.

Ananda Taratamya in Moksa: or a hierarchic gradation in the nature, range,
quality, intensity etc., of `svarupa-ananda' or innate bliss enjoyed by
the released souls, is a logical deduction from the theory of Svarupa-bheda
of souls accepted by Madhva. Since Moksa is only the discovery of one's
selfhood and experiencing what is there in it (`muktir hitva...), there is
no possibility of exchanging one's experience with another's or its
transference to another, whether wholly or in part. Each released soul rests
fully satisfied (`purna-trpta') in the enjoyment of "his own Svarupa-ananda."
Madhva uses the argument based on the obvious disparity in the Sadhanas of
different orders of beings to reinforce the docrine of Anandataratamya in
Moksa.

There is natural gradation among the released souls as also disparity in their
Sadhanas. The difference in the nature and quality of Sadhanas must
necessarily have a relation to the result. The existence of such a gradation
in Moksa is established by reason and revelation. Just as vessels of different
sizes, the rivers and the ocean are "full" of water according to their
respective capacities, even so, in respect of the Jivas, from ordinary human
beings to Brahmadeva, their fulness of bliss attained through Sadhanas is to
be understood with reference to their varying (intrinsic) capacities.
The sadhanas practiced by them such as Bhakti, Jnana etc., are nothing more
than an expression of their intrinsic potentialities, which are the core of
their being - going back to their beginningless eternity. Those with limited
capacities are satisfied with limited bliss and those with comparatively
greater capacities reach fulfilment with still more. But each one's
satisfaction would be "full" and "complete" in itself - having reached its
`saturation point.'

