{"id":67,"date":"2019-08-23T03:59:04","date_gmt":"2019-08-23T03:59:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icp03.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=67"},"modified":"2019-08-23T03:59:32","modified_gmt":"2019-08-23T03:59:32","slug":"dvaita","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/icp03\/chapter\/dvaita\/","title":{"rendered":"Dvaita"},"content":{"raw":"
\"epgp<\/a>\r\n<\/span><\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n
\r\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Like Advaita and Vi\u015bi\u015f\u0163\u0101dvaita, Dvaita is also a Ved\u0101ntic tradition. The first systematic exponent of this school of thought is Madhva (1199-1278). The other names of Madhva were N\u0101r\u0101ya\u0146a, V\u0101sudeva, P\u016br\u0146apraj\u0148a, and \u01cdnandat\u012brtha. He studied under Achyutaprek\u015fa. But he dissatisfied with his teacher\u2019s non-dualistic interpretation of Ved\u0101nta and decided to have an independent study. After several years of independent study and reflection of Ved\u0101nta he arrived at Dvaita Ved\u0101nta, according to which both Brahman and the world are real. It appears that he wrote around 37 works and the most important among them are <\/span>Madhvabh\u0101\u015fya<\/em> and <\/span>G\u0129t\u0101bh\u0101\u015fya.<\/em> Apart from them his commentaries on the <\/span>Brahma-s\u016btras<\/em> and the <\/span>Bhagavadg\u0129t\u0129<\/em> are equally inspiring. As a committed dualist he advocated personalistic theism. He equated Brahman with Lord Vi\u015f\u0146u and founded a sect called Sad-Vai\u015f\u0146avism. It is also known as Br\u0101hma-Vai\u015f\u0146avism. 2. Epistemology<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Madhva admits three valid means of cognition. They are: perception, inference, and Scripture (verbal knowledge). All other forms of knowledge can be brought under any one of these categories of knowledge. He defines valid cognition as the cognition of the object as it is. Such cognition is of two kinds: cognition as knowledge itself (<\/span>kevalapram\u0101\u0146a<\/em>) and cognition as an\u00a0<\/span>instrument of true knowledge (<\/span>anupram\u0101\u0146a<\/em>).1 In the former kind there is no distinction between valid cognition and valid means of cognition. The definition, as a matter of fact, itself overlooks the distinction. But this cognition is of two types: 1. Valid cognition which is the consciousness belonging to the knower (<\/span>s\u0101k\u015fij\u0148\u0101na<\/em>), and 2. Valid cognition which is the consciousness belonging to the functions (<\/span>v\u0157ttis<\/em>) of mind and senses. The former is infallible (<\/span>svatahpr\u0101m\u0101\u0146ya<\/em>). The latter is of three kinds. They are: perception, inference and verbal testimony. Memory is also valid form of knowledge, although it is a form of perception.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

2.1. Perception<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Madhva\u2019s doctrine of perception is same as Ny\u0101ya-Vai\u015be\u015fika theory. However, the followers of Madhva do not admit six-fold contact relationship between the senses and the object, and the distinction between indeterminate (<\/span>nirvikalpaka<\/em>) and determinate (<\/span>savikalpaka<\/em>) forms of perception. The six-fold contact relationship cannot be accepted, because Madhva rejected the relation of inherence (<\/span>samav\u0101ya<\/em>). Since all cognition is of determinate in nature, there exists no distinction between indeterminate and determinate forms of perception. Every object possesses a determinant such as colour, shape, size etc., which is reflected in the perception of that object. Even \u015ar\u0129 R\u0101m\u0101nuja\u2019s distinction between indeterminate and determinate forms of perception is not acceptable to Madhva.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

2.2. Inference and Verbal Testimony<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Madhva\u2019s conception of inference differs from the rest of the Ved\u0101ntic schools. Scripture is of two kinds, namely, that which is authored and that which is not authored. All the <\/span>pur\u0101\u0146as,<\/em> itih\u0101sas, dharma\u015b\u0101stras <\/em>come under the former category for they are<\/span> sm\u0157ti <\/em>texts. The Vedas belong to the latter category for they do not have any author. According to Dvaita, the Veda is eternal and in this respect it sides with M\u0129m\u0101ms\u0101. But both the forms of scripture are infallible.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

2.3. Validity of Knowledge<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Madhva has something new to contribute to the validity of knowledge. Like all other Ved\u0101ntins, he holds that knowledge is self-validated (<\/span>svatahpr\u0101m\u0101\u0146ya)<\/em> and its invalidity is due to some extraneous factors (<\/span>paratahapram\u0101\u0146ya<\/em>). But Madhva raises the question: How does knowledge which is valid in itself, become invalid sometimes? If valid in itself, how can any other factor influence its validity? How can anything make it false? So long as I see mirage as water it is true for me. But later on it may turn out to be false. Thus it may be possible for any knowledge to become false. Therefore, when it is said that some knowledge is self-valid, according to Madhva, it is the knowledge obtained from the scripture or it is the knowledge that is the\u00a0<\/span>consciousness of the witness (<\/span>s\u0101k\u015fi),<\/em> which is the \u0101tman itself. But knowledge that is obtained from the <\/span>v\u0157ttis<\/em> or functions of mind and senses is liable to error and is not self-valid. This is totally a different kind of interpretation that Madhva offers for self-valid nature of knowledge. Further Madhva maintains that there are two forms of knowledge, namely, direct and indirect. The knowledge attained by \u0101tman is direct for it involves no instruments such as mind, sense organs and indirect knowledge obtained through mind and sense-organs. Direct knowledge can never be contradicted.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3. Metaphysics<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

In Madhva\u2019s theory of knowledge perception is the foundation of his metaphysical dualism. He held that to perceive is to become aware of something as being unique and different from other things as well as from the perceiving self. True knowledge arises out of articulation of perceived differences between things as well as between things and the perceiving self. Therefore, to deny perception is to deny the very possibility of knowledge. However, Madhva cautions those who affirm identity, but deny the difference. They are caught in the absurd position of claiming knowledge by rejecting its very foundation. According to Madhva\u2019s argument, perception necessarily implies the perceiver and the perceived as distinct existents. In that case knowledge that is obtained through perception also involves the knower and the known as distinct existents. To put it succinctly, all knowledge is relative in the sense that it is relative to the knower and some known. As such no claim to knowledge can conceivably reject this view without running into contradiction or absurdity. Based on this argument Madhva rejects the tenability of non-dual, absolute knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

It is clear from the above argument that Madhva is both an epistemological and ontological realist. According to him, we not only perceive the world as constituted by different selves and material objects, but in reality too it is the case. The empirical world is real and pluralistic. Further, Madhva held that Brahman, the creator and the Lord of the world, is distinct from the world. Therefore his philosophy is through and through a philosophy of difference (distinctionism). Madhva recognized five fundamental and absolute distinctions. They are: (1) the difference between Brahman and individual selves, (2) the difference between Brahman and matter, (3) the difference between matter and individual selves, (4) the difference between one individual self and another, and (5) the difference between one material object and another. Also, Madhva divides the world into independent (<\/span>svatantra<\/em>) and dependent (<\/span>asvatantra<\/em>) beings. Brahman, who is identified with Lord Vi\u015f\u0146u, is the only independent being. Selves, material objects are dependent upon Brahman for their existence.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.1. Negation<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Like Ny\u0101ya-Vai\u015be\u015fika, Madhva admits the reality of negation, but with a difference. According to R\u0101m\u0101nuja, difference cannot be reduced to negation, for difference is positive constitutive feature of the object itself. Madhva views differences in the similar manner. Then we have only three kinds of negation left. They are: prior negation, posterior negation, and absolute negation. His views on prior and posterior forms of negation are similar to that of Ny\u0101ya-Vai\u015be\u015fika, but his views on absolute negation are different. According to Ny\u0101ya-Vai\u015be\u015fika, absolute negation is a negation of an object at all time and place except when and where it exists. For Madhva the negation of the son of barren woman can be treated as absolute negation. He argues that the idea of negation is to negate everything whether is real, unreal, imaginary, possible or impossible.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.2 Substance<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Madhva interprets substance as the material cause of change and also as that which comes into contact with other substances. However, God, the supernals, and the atman do not undergo change (<\/span>parin\u0101ma<\/em>), but only manifest themselves in different circumstances. Therefore, change in some cases is only a manifestation. Substance in other words is that which changes or manifests itself. It also comes into contact with other substances.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.3. The \u01cdtman<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Madhva identifies <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> with witness-consciousness (<\/span>s\u0101k\u015fi, j\u0129vas\u0101k\u015fi, s\u0101k\u015ficaitanya).<\/em> It is the nature of I-consciousness, like in \u015ar\u012a R\u0101m\u0101nuja\u2019s philosophy, which is different from ego. It is the knower (<\/span>j\u0148\u0101ta<\/em>), doer (<\/span>karta<\/em>), and enjoyer (<\/span>bhokta<\/em>) of the fruits of actions. The <\/span>\u0101tmans<\/em> are atomistic and constitute a plurality and each having a particularity of its own (<\/span>vi\u015be\u015fa<\/em>). They are absolutely dependent on God (<\/span>paratantra<\/em>), who alone is self-dependent (<\/span>svatantra<\/em>). By nature every atman is existent, conscious, and blissful (<\/span>sat-cit-\u0101nanda).<\/em> Due to ignorance (<\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em>) its original nature gets entangled with <\/span>prak\u0157ti.<\/em> This entanglement results in bondage. Every <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> is different from god, <\/span>Prak\u0157ti<\/em> and the other <\/span>\u0101tmans.<\/em> In the Upani\u015fads it is mentioned that <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> is the same as Brahman. But Madhva interprets it that <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> is similar to Brahman in the sense that the reflection (<\/span>pratibimba<\/em>) of one\u2019s face in the mirror is similar to one\u2019s face. They are not one and the same. Although the <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em>s are reflections or images of Brahman, they cannot be destroyed unlike ordinary objects which can be destroyed. They are real and <\/span>\u0101tmans<\/em> are the reflections of Brahman by nature. Their reflective nature of Brahman is not created by any external conditions (<\/span>up\u0101dhis<\/em>). So we cannot say that when the conditions are destroyed, the\u00a0<\/span>images are gone. The <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em>s are not reflections of God in some material but are the the reflections themselves. Here Madhva differes with Advaita, according to which <\/span>atmans<\/em> are reflections of Brahman in <\/span>m\u0101y\u0101\/avidy\u0101.<\/em> Once <\/span>m\u0101y\u0101\/avidy\u0101<\/em> disappears relections also disappear and only Brahman remains. Further Madhva maintains that <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> is self-conscious, self-revealing and self-luminous. It reveals itself to itself. However, the consciousness of <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> is distinct from itself, just as specific gravity of an object is external to it. Both <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> and its consciousness are two particulars.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.4. M\u0101y\u0101 and Avidy\u0101<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Although <\/span>m\u0101y\u0101<\/em> and <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> are equated to Prak\u0157ti, yet they are viewed as separated from it in Dvaita. Like \u015ar\u012b R\u0101m\u0101nuja, Madhva rejects Advaitic interpretation of <\/span>m\u0101y\u0101<\/em> and <\/span>avidy\u0101.<\/em> According to Madhva, <\/span>m\u0101y\u0101<\/em> is the mysterious will of God (<\/span>\u0129\u015bvarecch\u0101<\/em>). <\/span>Avidy\u0101<\/em> is the ignorance of <\/span>\u0101tman.<\/em> Like Advaitins Madhva holds that this <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> is not negative. The locus of <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> is <\/span>\u0101tman but not the Brahman. Avidy\u0101 has two-fold function. It conceals the true nature of \u0101tman <\/em>from itself and also conceals the Brahman (God) from the <\/span>\u0101tman.<\/em> Although the <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> is self-luminous <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> enters it due to the peculiar will of God. Then <\/span>\u0101t<\/em>m<\/span>an<\/em> gets entangled in Prak\u0157ti and its modifications. We do not know when <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> entered <\/span>\u0101tman.<\/em> In other words, its relation to <\/span>\u0101tman <\/em>is beginningless (<\/span>an\u0101di<\/em>). When the<\/span> \u0101tman <\/em>attains its liberation, it gets rid of<\/span> avidy\u0101 <\/em>and frees itself from <\/span>Prak\u0157ti.<\/em> The second function of <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> is to conceal the Brahman from <\/span>\u0101tman.<\/em> Such concealment makes <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> think that it is independent of the Brahman (God). The <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> can free itself from this function of <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> only when it realizes that it is dependent on God. Thus Madhva\u2019s conception of <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> is different from that of \u015aa\u0144kara and \u015ar\u0129 R\u0101m\u0101nuja. But his conception of <\/span>m\u0101y\u0101<\/em> is similar to that of \u015ar\u0129 R\u0101m\u0101nuja but different from \u015aa\u0144kara.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.5. God and Brahman<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Like \u015ar\u0129 R\u0101m\u0101nuja, Madhva identifies the personal God with the Brahman and rejects the doctrine of \u015aa\u0148kara that Brahman is bereft of qualities (<\/span>nirgu\u0146a<\/em>). The Brahman possesses all the auspicious qualities and is the personal God himself. He is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world. But unlike \u015ar\u0129 R\u0101m\u0101nuja\u2019s God, Madhva\u2019s God is completely different from <\/span>\u0101tmans, Prak\u0157ti,<\/em> space and time. Madhva being the follower of P\u0101\u0148car\u0101tra tradition believes that God is independent and self-dependent. God cannot be the material cause for he can only be efficient and instrumental cause. If God is material cause then he undergoes transformation then such self-transformation affects his perfection. Since God being perfect he cannot be the material cause. He must be independent of all such transformations.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.6. Prak\u0157ti and Causation<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Madhva does not accept Ny\u0101ya-Vai\u015be\u015fika view of causation, according to which the effect does not pre-exist in the cause. If that is the case then the effect is something Non-being. Madhva on the contrary holds that there is nothing absolutely new. Every form of causation is a change from the subtle to gross state and vice-versa. Transformation (<\/span>pari\u0146\u0101ma<\/em>) means such a change. This kind of change is seen in the case of <\/span>Park\u0157ti<\/em> wherein its evolutes evolve out it. What evolves from <\/span>Prak\u0157ti<\/em> is already contained in its potential stage in <\/span>Prak\u0157ti.<\/em> But God and souls do not go such transformation. Either they become manifest or unmanifest. In the case of God manifestation is due to his kindness. But if <\/span>Prak\u0157ti<\/em> shows what is already contained in it then it is difficult to draw a distinction between change and manifestation. Madhva perhaps means that there are two types of manifestation, and change is one form of manifestation.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The creation of world by God does not mean that the world came into existence at a particular time. It is unthinkable to say that God existed first and then created this world. He is God and creator at one and the same time. The world is created by God means that it is always dependent on him. Creation is something continuous therefore what is created is also continuously dependent on God. Causality means dependence.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.7. Time and Space<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Madhva\u2019s conception of time and space has its own peculiarity. Madhva holds that time is an evolute of <\/span>Prak\u0157ti<\/em> along with Cosmic Reason (<\/span>Mahat<\/em>). All other evolutes evolved out of <\/span>Mahat<\/em> and exist in time. Therefore, time is real. Concerning space, Madhva holds that space is different from ether (<\/span>\u0101k\u0101\u015ba<\/em>). Space (<\/span>dik<\/em>) is that which offers place for things to exist and move. Ether is the origin of sound. It is one of the <\/span>bh\u016btas.<\/em> Even <\/span>Prak\u0157ti<\/em> requires space to exist. Space is therefore a distinct reality independent of <\/span>Prak\u0157ti<\/em> and time also. It is formless. Although time and space are infinite they can be infinitely divisible and their divisions also are as real as the infinite wholes. The parts into which time and space are divided are also times and spaces. They are not durationless and extensionless points. Time and space cannot be inferred for there is no major premise from which they can be inferred. They are perceived; but they cannot be perceived by functional consciousness (<\/span>v\u0157tti-j\u0148\u0101na<\/em>), but by witness consciousness (<\/span>s\u0101k\u015fi-j\u0148\u0101na<\/em>).<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

4. Liberation<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Life\u2019s ideal for Madhva is to get liberated from bondage. According to hi, action leads to knowledge, and knowledge leads to the love of God. There is nothing superior to self-surrender. The souls after liberation live along with God in the same world (<\/span>s\u0101lokya<\/em>). They live near God (<\/span>s\u0101m\u0129pya<\/em>). They also become like God (<\/span>s\u0101r\u016bpya<\/em>). They also enjoy together with God (<\/span>s\u0101l\u016bjya<\/em>). However, they never become one with God. According to Madhva, there are various levels of liberation. Each level is dependent upon the kind of strenuous effort made by the spiritual aspirant (soul) to attain it. For Madhva the liberated souls do not form the body of God. Madhva holds that bondage is due to <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> and is positive in nature. It has the power of concealment and the power of projection. But <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> does not veil the original existence of <\/span>\u0101tman.<\/em> It always knows its existence. God himself is responsible for <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> in the <\/span>\u0101tman.<\/em> Therefore, God has to be loved and worshipped min order to get it removed. When <\/span>\u0101tman<\/em> is covered by <\/span>avidy\u0101<\/em> then it keeps on adding other limitations to its being. It is only through direct and unmediated experience of God (<\/span>aparok\u015f\u0101nubh\u016bti<\/em>) one can overcome <\/span>avidy\u0101.<\/em><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Summary<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Madhva\u2019s Dvaita regards both the world of objects and God as eternally real. However, the world of objects is continuously dependent on God for its existence. <\/span>Avidy\u0101<\/em> is the root cause of bondage. God himself is responsible for it. Therefore it is only through the intervention of God <\/span>avidy\u0101 <\/em>can be removed. The only way out of bondage is through devotion (<\/span>bhakti) <\/em>and self-surrender <\/span>(prapatti).<\/em> This is the ultimate goal of human life.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
you can view video on Dvaita <\/strong><\/td>\r\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\nWeb links\r\n