in 13th-century CE South India with Sri Madhvacarya (Madhva). Madhva,
who considered himself an avatara of the wind-god Vayu, argued that a
body of canonical texts called the "Vedanta" or "end of the Veda"
taught the fundamental difference between the individual self or atman
and the ultimate reality, brahman. 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. By interpreting the Vedanta materials
(especially the Upanisads, the Bhagavadgita and the Brahmasutras)
along these lines, Madhva deliberately challenged the non-dualist
reading in which the atman was identified with brahman. Madhva argued
that the scriptures could not teach the identity of all beings because
this would contradict ordinary perception, which tells us that we are
different both from one another and from God. Madhva and his followers
call their system tattvavada, "the realist viewpoint".
1. Madhva and Sankara
The main tenet of Madhva's Dvaita Vedanta is that the Vedic tradition
teaches a fundamental difference between the human soul or atman and
the ultimate reality, brahman. This is markedly different from the
earlier Advaita Vedanta, which Madhva often vociferously attacked.
Sankara's A-dvaita or "non-dualist" Vedanta (9th century) argued that
the atman is completely identical with brahman. According to Sankara,
the atman experiences a false sense of plurality and individuality
when under the influence of the delusive power of maya. While maya has
the ambiguous ontological status of being neither real nor unreal, the
only true reality is brahman. A soul becomes liberated from the cycle
of rebirth (punar-janma) by realizing that its very experience of
samsara is an illusion; its true identity is the singular objectless
consciousness that constitutes pure being or brahman.
2. Madhva and Ramanuja
While Ramanuja's system of Visistadvaita Vedanta or "qualified
non-dualism" modifies Sankara's position on the soul's identity with
brahman, Madhva also rejected it. Ramanuja assumes a plurality of
individual souls whose identity remains intact even after liberation
but maintains that the souls share the essential nature of brahma. The
souls are eternal particles issuing from brahman, who as their source
retains its transcendence. Ramanuja maintains Visnu's distinct
difference from the human soul and his supremacy as creator and
redeemer. Ramanuja identifies brahman with Visnu, holding that brahman
is saguna, i.e. possesses attributes, in contrast to Sankara's
attributeless or "nirguna" brahman.
3. Dvaita Vedanta
Like Ramanuja, Madhva identifies brahman with Visnu. However, he
argues that any system that allows for any identification of the atman
with brahman undermines Visnu's supremacy, compromises His status, and
strips devotional acts of their meaning. Madhva's insistence on the
modal distinction between the atman and brahman, wherein the former is
inalterably dependent upon–and therefore, fundamentally different
from–the latter, insures Visnu-as-brahman's complete and utter
transcendence of the human soul. For Madhva, this view alone makes
devotion [bhakti] an essential component of religious belief and
practice. Attaining Visnu's grace is the soul's only hope of achieving
liberation [moksa] from the cycle of rebirth (samsara).
Like Ramanuja, Madhva opposes Sankara's conception of Brahman as
nirguna or without qualities and as a pure self- consciousness. Madhva
views Visnu as preeminent above all other deities on the basis of His
unique characteristics. This emphasis on Visnu's particular
collocation of attributes that renders Him distinct from all other
gods, human souls, and the material world reveals another critical
component of Madhva's philosophy which is his acceptance of an
ontological plurality as a fundamental facet of being. Indeed, Madhva
rejects the notion that brahman is the only truly existent entity
(tattva) and he maintains that, even though living beings and inert
matter are dependent upon Brahman, such dependence differentiates them
from Him and makes them discrete entities (tattvas). Thus, reality in
Madhva's system consists of three basic elements: God, the souls
(jivasi), and insentient matter (jada).
Madhva's pluralistic ontology is founded on his realist epistemology,
which in turn affects his Vedic hermeneutics. He argues that God and
the human soul are separate because our daily experience of
separateness from God and of plurality in general is presented to us
as an undeniable fact, fundamental to our knowledge of all things.
Madhva's emphasis on the validity of experience as a means of
knowledge is intended to refute the nondualist position that the
differences we experience in daily life are ultimately a shared
illusion with the ambiguous ontological status of being neither real
nor unreal. In Madhva's view, Advaita's denial of the innate validity
of knowledge acquired through sense perception completely undermines
our ability to know anything since we must always question the content
of our knowledge. This questioning would encompass our knowledge of
the sacred canon, which is accessible to us only through our ability
to perceive it and to draw inferences from it. Madhva argues that
perception and inference must be innately valid and the reality they
present us with must be actually and ultimately real since such a
position is the only one that allows us to know the content of the
Vedas. The Vedas alone are responsible for teaching us about the
nature of the self and brahman.
This aspect of Madhva's realist epistemology is important not only
because it bolsters Madhva's claim that the atman and brahman are
permanently distinct as revealed to us by experience, but because it
means that the sacred texts must be read in consonance with the data
we receive from our everyday experience, even though the Vedas present
us with knowledge of a supra-sensible realm. Madhva argues that the
Vedas cannot teach non-difference between the atman and brahman or a
lack of true plurality since this would directly contradict our
experience. In Madhva's view the sacred texts teach pancabheda, the
five-fold difference between 1. Visnu and jivas 2. Visnu and jada 3.
jiva and jada 4. one jiva and another and 5. one form of jada and
another.
Madhva's belief in the innate difference of one soul from another led
to some interesting doctrines in his system. He believed in a
hierarchy of jivas, based upon their innate configurations of virtues
(gunas) and faults (dosas). For example, Visnu is supreme because He
possesses all qualities in their most fulfilled and perfect form.
Furthermore, because Madhva believed that souls possess innate
characteristics and capacities, he also maintained that they were
predestined to achieve certain ends. This perspective put Madhva at
odds with traditional Hindu views of the karma theory wherein
differences in social and religious status are explained via past
moral or immoral acts. For Madhva, each individual being possesses an
innate moral propensity and karma is merely the mechanism by which a
given soul is propelled towards his or her destiny.
4. Canonical Sources
Madhva's attempts to locate his controversial views in the canonical
Vedanta texts often proved difficult. He is perhaps most famous for
his idiosyncratic rendering of the Chandogya Upanisad's statement tat
tvam asi or "you (the atman) are that (brahman)." By carrying over the
'a' from the preceding word, Madhva rendered the phrase atat tvam asi
or "you are not that." Some scholars have speculated on "foreign,"
particularly Christian, influences on Madhva's thought but current
scholarly consensus maintains that political and social changes in
Madhva's region prompted a new approach to old religious convictions.
Madhva's Dvaita Vedanta is recognized as one of the three major
schools of Vedanta (besides Sankara's Advaita and Ramanuja's
Visistadvaita Vedanta). It has been further developed by such major
figures as Jayatirtha (1356-1388) and Vyasaraya (1478-1589) and is
kept alive by a still flourishing community [Madhva sampradaya] in
India with its main center at Udipi (Karnataka).
5. References and Further Reading
Sharma, B. N. K. Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya. Rev. ed. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1986.
Sharma, B. N. K. Madhva's Teachings in His Own Words. Bombay:
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1961.
Siauve, Suzanne. La Doctrine de Madhva. Pondicherry: Institut Francais
d'Indologie, 1968.
No comments:
Post a Comment