CONTENTS

PREFACE 3

INTRODUCTION 5

I ADVAITA VEDANTA OF SANKARACARYA (788-820AD) 5

IITHE DECLINE OF MAYAVADA AND THE THEISTIC

REACTION OF 8

SRI RAMANUJACARYA 8

PART I SRI SAMPRADAYA 9

A PRE-RAMANUJA PERIOD 9

I. The Alvars 9

II. The Acaryas 10

B SRI RAMANUJACARYA 11

I. His Life 11

II. Sri Ramanuja's Works 12

C VISIÑTADVAITA VEDANTA PHILOSOPHY 13

I. Meaning of the Term ViSiñTadvaita 13

II. Fundamental Metaphysical Categories 13

III. Pramasas and their Validity 15

IV. Theory of Knowledge 15

V. Knowledge and the External World 16

VI. The Doctrine of Jiva 16

VII. The Doctrine of ISvara. 20

VIII. Brahman and Universe 25

IX. Sadhana and Mukti 26

D POST-RAMANUJA PERIOD 29

I. Pillai Lokacarya (1264-1327) 30

II. Vedanta DeSika (1268-1369) 30

III. Differences between Tenkalai and Vaòakalai Schools. 31

PART II BRAHMA SAMPRADAYA 32

A INTRODUCTION 32

I. Need for a New DarSana 32

B SRI MADHVACARYA (1238-1317) 34

I) His Life 34

II. Sri Madhvacarya’s Literary Works 35

C DVAITA PHILOSOPHY OF SRI MADHVACARYA 36

I. Ontology 36

II. Epistemology 39

III. The World of Experience 39

IV. Doctrine of Atman 40

V. Doctrine of Brahman 43

VI. Sadhana-Vicara 43

VII. Doctrine of Mukti 45

D COMPARISON WITH OTHER SYSTEMS 46

I. Dvaita versus ViSiñTadvaita 46

II. Some Flashes of the Madhva’s Dialetic 47

E POST- MADHVA PERIOD 49

I. Life and Works of Jayathirtha (1345-88) 49

II. Life and Works of Vyasatirtha (1460-1539) 49

III. Madhva School and its Institutions 50

PART III KUMARA SAMPRADAYA 51

A SRI NIMBARKACARYA 51

I. His Life 51

II. Nimbarka’s Literary Work and Others 51

B NIMBARKA’S SVABHAVIKA-BHEDABHEDA-VADA 52

I. General Aspects 52

II. Philosophical Points 52

III. Some Comparisons to Sri Caitanya’s philosophy 54

IV ViSiñTadvaita Versus Svabhavika -Bhedabheda 55

PART IV RUDRA SAMPRADAYA 56

A EARLY PERIOD 56

I. Sri Viñsusvami 56

II. Sridhara Svami 57

B SRI VALLABHACARYA (1481-1533) 57

I. His Life 57
II. Vallabhacarya's Works 58

C SUDDHADVAITA PHILOSOPHY 59

I. Basic Philosophical Points 59

II. Two Types of Brahman 59

III. Jivas and the World 59

IV. Mokña 60

PART IV BRAHMA-MADHVA-GAUÒIYA-SAMPRADAYA 63

A DOCTRINE OF ACINTYA-BHEDABHEDA 63

I. Some Characteristic Features 63

II. Distinguishing Factors of the Gauòiya Vaiñsavism. 64

III. Some Particular Points of the Gauòiya Philosophy and Religion

not Found in Other Vaiñsava Sects: 66

APPENDIX I COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE 67

VAIÑSAVA SCHOOLS 67

I. Relation Among God, World and the Souls 67

II. Efficient and Material Cause of the World 68

III. Dependence of the souls and the world to God 69

IV. Some difficulties 70

V. God, karma 71

VI. karma, jnana and bhakti 71

APPENDIX II THE LIVES OF THE ALVARS 72

I. Poygai, Bhütam and Pey Alvar 72

II. TirumaliSai-Alvar 73

III. Nammalvar and Madhurakavi-Alvar 74

IV. KulaSekhara Alvar 76

V. Peryi - Alvar 77

VI. Asòal-Alvar 78

VII. Tosòaraòippoòi-Alvar 79

VIII. Tiruppan-Alvar 80

IX. Tirumangai-Alvar 81
PREFACE

Srila Prabhupada ends his introduction of the Srimad Bhagavatam with

the following words: “The cult of Sri Caitanya philosophy is richer
than any other, and it is admitted to be the living religion of the day
with the potency for spreading as viSva-dharma or universal religion.”

We, gauòiya vaiñsavas, are convinced that the philosophy of Sri

Caitanya is the essence of all other Vaiñsava philosophies. It is the
definite sidhanta, the most precise exposition of the words of
Bhagavan Srila Vyasadeva, and the last word in Vedanta philosophy.
Actually the four Vaiñsava philosophies ViSiñTadvaita, Dvaita,
Suddhadvaita and Svabhavika-bhedabheda , have paved the way for
the manifestation of Sri Caitanya's Acintya-bhedabheda-tattva.

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his Navadvipa-Mahatmyam

(Parikrama-khasòa) revealed that all the founder acaryas of the
Vaiñsava sampradayas, namely Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhvacarya, Sri
Viñsusvami and Sri Nimbarkacarya performed some pastimes in
Gauòa-masòala. He described a meeting Lord Caitanya had with Sri
Nimbarka, when He addressed him with these words:

madhva haite saradvaya kariba grahasa

eka haya kevala-advaita nirasana

kåñsa-mürti nitya jani'taàhara sevana

sei ta'dvitiya sara jana mahajana

ramanuja haite anni lai dvi sara

ananya-bhakati, bhaktajana-seva ara

 viñsu haite dui sara kariba svikara

tadiya sarvasva-bhava, ragamarga ara

toma haite laba ami dui mahasara

ekanta radhikaSraya gopi-bhava ara

“Later when I begin the sankirtana movement I myself will preach

using the essence of the philosophies of the four of you. From
Madhva I will receive two items: his complete defeat of the Mayavadi
philosophy, and his service to the mürti of Kåñsa, accepting it as an
eternal spiritual being. From Ramanuja I will accept two teachings:
the concept of bhakti unpolluted by karma or jnana and service to the
devotees. From Viñsusvami's teaching I will accept two elements: the
sentiment of exclusive dependence on Kåñsa and the path of raga-
bhakti. And from you I will receive two great principles: the necessity
of taking shelter of Radha and the high esteem for the gopis love of
Kåñsa.”

Our Gauòiya sampradaya is therefore very much indebted to all these

great acaryas. Srila Jiva Gosvami declares that he resorted to the
commentaries of great vaiñsavas like Sridhara Svami, Sri
Ramanujacarya and Sri Madhvacarya while composing his
masterpiece Ñaò-Sandarbha which expresses the essence of Lord
Caitanya's philosophy.

Another very significant act of recognition performed by the Gauòiyas

for the whole Vaiñsava community, and their revered acaryas, was
offered by Srila Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati Thakura. He installed the
mürtis of the four acaryas in the main temple for regular worship in the
Sri Caitanya MaTha, Sri Mayapur dhama.
 * * *

This work was done mostly by direct compilation and adaptation from
texts of some of the best books available in the English language on
the subject. The idea is that a recognized representative of each
sampradaya expose its own philosophy with its own words, concepts
and termonology. In this way the information is more accurate and we
are able to better appreciate the mood of each sampradaya. The
following books were used in this work:

1- A History of Indian Philosophy (5Vol), Surendranath Dasgupta

2- A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy,Dr. Chandrahara Sharma

3- An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Dr. Satiscandra Chatterjee and

Dr. Dhirendramohan Datta

4- Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, Svami Tapasyananda

5- Conceptions of God in Vaiñsava Philosophical Systems, Dr. Manju

Bube

6- Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya, O.B.L.Kapoor

7- The History & Literature of the Gauòiya Vaiñsavas and their Relation

to other Medieval Vaiñsava Schools, Dr. Sambidananda

Das

8- The Philosophy of ViSiñTadvaita, P.N. Srinivasachari

9- Fundamentals of ViSiñTadvaita, S.M. Srinivasa Chari

10- Vaiñsavism Its Phiosophy, Theology and Religious Discipline,

S.M. Srinivasa Chari

11- The Holy lives of the Alvars, Alkondavili Govindacharya

12- Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya, B.N.K. Sharma

13- History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta & its Literature,

B.N.K. Sharma

14- Sri Madhvacarya and his Cardinal Doctrines, D.N. Shanbhag

15- Doctrines of Nimbarka and His Followers, Roma Bose

16- The Philosophy of Nimbarka, Madan Mohan Agrawal

17- A Life of Sri Vallabhacarya and the Doctrines, Prof. G.H.Bhatt.

18- Sri Vallabhacarya and His Doctrines, Prof. G.H. Bhatt.

19- PuñTi-marga and Sri Vallabhacarya, edited by C.M. Vaidya.

20- Vaiñsavism, edited by Steven J. Rosen.

PURUÑATRAYA SVAMI

Våndavana, Karttika 1993

INTRODUCTION

I Advaita Vedanta of Sankaracarya (788-820AD)

Ultimate Reality, according to Sankara, is Brahman or Atman, which
is advaya, one without a second; nothing at all exists besides
Brahman, whether inside It, as Its part or attribute, or outside It.
Brahman is nirgusa, or devoid of all attributes, and nirviSeña,
devoid of all categories of intellect. It is Pure Consciousness (jnana-
svarüpa), a pure unity, absolutely homogeneous. The nirgusa
Brahman is also called Para-Brahman, or Higher Brahman.
Brahman or Atma is the Unqualified Absolute. He is the only
Reality. It is the Self which is Self-luminous and which transcends
the subject-object duality and the trinity of ‘knower, known and
knowledge’.

Sankara’s Advaita philosophy may be summarized in this sentence:

brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva naparaù ‘Brahman is
the only Reality; the world is ultimately false; and the individual
soul is non-different from Brahman’.

But if nothing else besides Brahman exists, how to explain the

appearance of this physical world and the individual beings like
ourselves? To solve this question, Sankara introduced in his
philosophy the ‘theory of maya’.

Brahman associated with Its potency maya appears as the qualified or

sagusa Brahman. This sagusa-Brahman is ISvara or God, Who is
the creator, maintainer and annihilator of this world. To the Advaita-
vadis God is the apara-Brahman, or Lower Brahman.

This world does not have real existence. It is a mere appearance in

Brahman, due to the Brahman’s magical creative power, maya. In
spite of being considered to be a product of maya, ISvara is the
Master of maya, the magician who produces illusory appearances of
physical objects and living beings by his incomprehensible magical
power.
The theory that the world is taken as an illusory appearance in
Brahman is called by Sankara as Vivarta-vada, the theory of
illusion. The classical examples given are the ‘rope-snake’ and
‘conchshell-silver’.
In a situation of half light, a rope on the ground may be mistaken by
a snake, and all psycological and emotional reactions take place in
the person as the snake were real. This analogy is meant to show
that although this world is not real we, under the spell of ajnana,
think as if it were real.i[i][K1]
The other example says that under certain conditions of luminosity
and in certain angle, the mother-of-pearl of the conchshell appears
like an object of silver. It is explained that the silver, although non-
existent, was superimposed in the conchshell. The conchshell is the
ground on which the silver is superimposed. Similarly this world,
although non-existent, is taken to be a superimposition or projection
(adhyasa) in Brahman. Brahman associated with its power maya is
the ground on which the phenomenal world is superimposed.
The world is not a transformation (parisama) of Brahman, but it is
an appearance only (vivarta).

According to Sankara, the relation between the cause and the effect is
called vivarta-vada, wherein the cause alone is real and the effect is
illusory or a superimposition, and hence unreal. The vivarta-vada
reduces all effects to mere appearances without any reality of their
own. Therefore when the substratum, base, or fundation of a
superimposition comes to be known, all superimposed appearances
are consequentely sublated, and the truth is revealed that the
substratum (Brahman) alone is real. Then, the Advaita philosophy
states that when Brahman is known as it is, the world of
appearances is automatically switched off and the underlying truth
alone shines forth, as the one and only Reality.

But if Brahman is an indifferentiated entity and nothing else exists

besides Him, how the appearance of the physical world and the
individual beings are justified? To answer this question, Sankara
explains it with the ‘theory of maya’ and the ‘concept of different
states of existence’.
To him, there exist three states of existence: paramarthika,
vyavaharika and pratibhasika.
 The Absolute Existence or Reality on the level of Brahman is called
paramarthika. In this state of pure existence there is no forms, no
individuality, no activity and no sensation. It is a state of
PureConsciousness. The practical or empirical reality of this world
is called vyavaharika. From the phenomenal point of view, the
world, which is mere appearance or superimposition in Brahman,
due to maya, is quite real. It is like a dream things seen in a dream
are quite true as long as the dream lasts; they are sublated only when
we are awake. Similarly, the world is quite true so long as true
knowledge does not dawn.
The pratibhasika state of existence is an imaginary existence. It was
called by some commentators as “the illusion of the illusion”. The
identification of the self with the body is pratibhasika existence, the
identification of the self with the individual soul is vyavharika
existence, while the identification of the self with Brahman is
paramartika existence, the only real existence.

According to Sankara, maya or avidya is not only absence of

knowledge. It is also positive wrong knowledge or illusion,
therefore it is a positive entity (bhava-rüpa). But, at the same time,
it is not existent because the only existent thing is Brahman. And it
cannot be non-existent for maya has the power to create the
appearance of the world in Brahman.
In fact, according to Sankara, maya is ‘neither existent nor non-
existent nor both’. It cannot be both existent and non-existent for
this conception is self-contradictory. maya, therefore, is neither real
nor unreal (sad-asad-vilakñana).
To solve this situation, Sankara says that maya is anirvacaniya, or
indescribable.
maya is also begginingless (anadi), but not endless (ananta), since it
is cancelled in mokña, liberation.
maya is removed by brahma-jnana, the knowledge of the essential
unity of the jivatma and Brahman. When vidya dawns avidya
vanishes. When the rope is known, the ‘rope-snake’ vanishes.

All difference is due to ignorance. It is not ultimate. Names and forms

(nama-rüpa) are only figments of ignorance. They are neither real
nor unreal.
Advaita philosophy does not admit that the individual soul, jiva, is
ultimately real. This philosophy states that Brahman, the True Self,
is One, but It appears as many.
The plurality of jivas, which is apparent to our ordinary experience,
is accounted for on the basis of the upadhis or limiting adjuncts.
Basically, there are two theories which expain how Brahman has
become many.
The One Self appears as many because of the upadhis (fisical body,
suble body).
Thus, for example, akaSa or space is all-pervasive and one; when
this akaSa is conditioned by various pots, we call them different
akaSas. In the same way there exists only One Self or Atma, and the
same when conditioned by different internal organs (antaùkarasa or
subtle body) appears as different jivas. This theory is called
apaccheda-vada. It is ascribed to Vacaspati MiSra, the author of
Bhamati.
The other theory is called bimba-pratibimba-vada or reflection
theory. This is explained on the analogy of the reflection of the
single moon in the waves of the ocean. Just as the single moon
appears as many being reflected in the waves, likewise the self also
appears as many being reflected in numerous internal organs or
upadhis. This theory was elaborated by PrakaSatman, author of
Vivarasa.

ISvara has been a taxing problem for the followers of Sankara.

According to some, ISvara is the reflection of Brahman in avidya.
According to others, Brahman, limited or conditioned by maya is
ISvara, while Brahman limited by avidya or the internal organ
(antaùkarasa or upadhis which is a product of avidya) is jiva.

ISvara is limited by His own power of nescience and appears as many

phenomenal selves like the space appears as different “spaces”
limited by the adjuncts of jars, pots, etc. The omniscience,
omnipresence and omnipotence of ISvara are all due to the adjuncts
of ignorance; they are not ultimate. Where the essential unity of the
Atma is realized, they all vanish. Creation, therefore, is due to
ignorance. It is not ultimately real.

Brahman is the only Reality. It is absolutely indeterminate and non-

dual. It is beyond speech and mind. It is indescribable because no
 description of it can be complete. The best description of it is trough
the negative formula of “neti neti”.
Effects alone can be negated, for they are unreal. But the cause, the
Brahman, cannot be negated, for It is the ultimate ground on which
all effects are superposed.

ISvara becomes ‘unreal’ only for one who has realized his oneness
with Brahman by rising above speech and mind. For us, conditioned
souls, ISvara is all in all. Finite thought can never grasp Brahman.
And therefore all talks about Brahman are really talks about ISvara.
Even the words ‘unconditioned Brahman’ refer really to
‘conditioned ISvara’, for the moment we speak of Brahman, He
ceases to be Brahman and becomes ISvara.
Brahman, reflected in or conditioned by maya, is called ISvara or
God. This is the ‘celebrated’ distinction between God and the
Absolute which Sankara makes. ISvara is also known as Apara-
Brahman or Lower Brahman as contrasted with the unconditioned
Brahman which is called Para-Brahman or Higher Brahman.

ISvara or God is sat-cit-ananda. He is the Perfect Personality. He is

the Lord of maya. He is immanent in the whole universe which He
controls from within. He is the Soul of the souls as well as the Soul
of Nature. He is also transcendental, for His own nature He
transcends the universe. He is the source of everything, He is the
final haven of everything.He is the Concrete Universal, the Supreme
Individual, the Whole, the Identity-in-difference. He is the inspirer
of moral life. He is the object of devotion. He is all in all from the
practical standpoint.

Brahman is realized exclusively by jnana, not by karma or bhakti. The

sadhana for Brahman realization or mokña is total vairagya,
renunciation, and meditation in the maha-vakya ‘tat tvam asi’.

IIThe Decline of Mayavada and the Theistic

Reaction of
Sri Ramanujacarya
a) About the latter part of the twelfth century some signs of a growing
discontent with the empty abstractions of Mayavada were beginning
 to be felt. Several versions of the Advaita doctrine, often in conflict
with one another, on vital points, had been given, both by the
contemporaries and successors of Sankaracarya. The enunciations
of Sankara's owns views on the Vedanta was not in many points
convincingly clear. This gave rise to various schools of thought
which claimed to be the proper interpretation of the monistic ideas
of Sankara; but which differed from one another sometimes in a
very remarkable manner. Differences arose between master and
disciples and among disciples themselves in the elucidation of
general principles and doctrines. For over five centuries from the
eight, Monism in some form or other, had had strong influence. But,
after that, popular interest in and admiration for inevitably
decreased.

b) Around the twelfth century, philosophy fell into an dry exercise in

definition and counter-definitions and unmitigated dialecticism.
Philosophy had ceased to be an earnest quest of God and the eternal
life.

c) At that time, a wave of intense devotionalism in religion and theism

in philosophy was surging throughout the country. To the average
man of the world, it appeared the Mayavadis had perverted the goal
of oneness supported in the Upaniñads; while the one they offered
instead was unrealisable. The denial of the Supreme will and
knowledge of the Lord was something hard to swallow, as well as
statements like 'God, after all, is unreal' or that 'even the
Puruñottama is imaginary'.

d) When the devotionalism of the southern vaiñsavas reached its

height about the tenth century, there was bound to come a demand
for a formal alliance with the Vedanta. The Theism of Vaiñsavas
could no longer be content with a subordinate place. Sri
Yamunacarya had undertook the task of reviving the labor of the
previous Vaiñsavas, and had called the attention to the defects of
Mayavada, in his Siddhitraya. But a systematic commentary on the
prañThana-traya was a need. The ancient worker of Bodhayana,
Tanka, etc, had evidently been lost, or had become completely out
of date, in style or method and totally eclipsed by the famous
commentary of Sri Sankaracarya. The task of writing a new
commentary, on par with the best in the field, so as to push
Vaiñsava Theism into the focus of contemporary philosophic
thought was an urgent one. It was taken up by Sri Ramanujacarya,
who wrote lengthy commentaries on the Vedanta-sütra and the
Bhagavad-gita, and thus established Vedantic Realism on a firm
basis, both logical and textual.
PART I SRI SAMPRADAYA

A PRE-RAMANUJA PERIOD
I. The Alvars

a) It is believed that the verses in the Srimad Bhagavatam (11.5.38-40)

are a prophecy for the appearance of the Aÿvars, the saints of South
India. "My dear king, the inhabitants of Satya Yuga and other ages
eargerly desire to take birth in this age of Kali, since in this age
there will be many devotees of the Supreme Lord, Narayasa. These
devotees will appear in various places but will be especially
numerous in South India. O master of men, in the age of Kali those
persons who drink the waters of the holy rivers of Dravida-deSa
such as the Tamraparsi, Kåtamala, Payasvini, the extremely pious
Kaveri and the Pratici Maharadi, will almost all be purehearted
devotees of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vasudeva".
b) The word Alvar means ‘one who has a deep intuitive knowledge of
God’ or ‘one who is immersed in the contemplation of God’.
c) The Aÿvars are twelve in number and, according to modern
historical research, they flourished in the period between the second
century AD and the eighth century AD. But according to ancient
Sri-Vaiñsava literature some of them appeared in the end of the
Dvapara Yuga and others in the beginning of the Kali Yuga.
d) They were all Maha-Bhagavatas who manifested devotional ecstacy
of Bhagavat-prema in the highest degree. All of them had divine
darSana of the Lord and they were continuosly immersed in love of
God. They expressed their mystic realizations in fine poetry.
e) They were born into different castes and at different times, but
basically they had the same devotional mood.
f) The twelve Aÿvars are: 1) Poygai (incarnation of the Viñsu’s gada,
the mace), 2) Bhütam (Viñsu’s Sanka, conch), 3) Pey (Viñsu’s
nandaka, sword), 4) TirumaliSai (Viñsu’s cakra), 5) Nanmaÿvar
(ViSvaksena), 6) Madhurakavi, 7) KülaSekhara (kaustubha), 8)
Periy (Garuda), 9) Asòal (Bhü-devi), 10) Tosòaraòippoòi
(vanamala, Viñsu’s garland), 11) Tiruppan and 12) Tirumangai
(Sarnga, Viñsu’s bow).
g) The most prominent of them is Nanmaÿvar, who composed the
famous Tiruvaymoli, also called Dramiòopaniñad, which is
unsurpassed in mystic literature. He is the founder of the prapatti
school.
h) The poems composed by the Aÿvars were written in Tamil language
and they altogether (four thousand verses) are called Nalayira-
divya-prabhandam. These hymns express the state of the soul
completely dependent and surrendered to the Lord. Also they
glorify the qualities of Lord Narayasa, and the most important
arcana-mürtis of Lord Viñsu all around India, especially Lord
Ranganatha of Sri Rangam. In many passages the Alvars address to
Lord Kåñsa in Våndavana in the mood of vatsalya-bhava and even
in the mood of the gopis, aspiring conjugal relationship with Kåñsa.
i) This Divya-prabhanda has very much importance in the Sri-
sampradaya, and it is taken as equivalent to the prañThana-traya,
being also known as Ubhaya-Vedanta.
II. The Acaryas

While the Aÿvars were divers into divinity, the Acaryas who followed
them became the expositors of the Aÿvar's experience and the
apostles of Sri-vaiñsavism as the system is now known.
The first pontiff of Sri-Vaiñsavism was Nathamuni, descendent of
the Bhagavat immigrants from regions where the Ganges flows.
He was born at Mannaguòi in the South Arcot district in 824, and he
became a muni even in his youth. Tradition ascribes to him the
miraculous discovery of the lost Tiruvaymoli of Nanmaÿvar and
then of the entire Prabandha. While at Kumbakonam, he happened
to hear the recitals of the hymns of Nanmaÿvar. Nathamuni then
realized the sweetness of those divine songs and became eager to
recover the whole work. He went to Tirunagari where the whole of
the Prabandha was miraculously revealed to him by the Aÿvar
himself after having recited twelve thousand times a verse
composed by Madhurakavi Aÿvar in adoration of his guru
Nanmaÿvar. Nathamuni grouped the Prabandha on the Vedic
model into four parts and its recitation was introduced as a part of
the temple worship at Sri Rangam and this practice is even now
followed in all Sri-Vaiñsava temples. Nathamuni wrote two
important works Nyaya-tattva (the first treatise on ViSiñTadvaita
philosophy) and Yoga-rahasya but not vailable nowdays. He passed
away in samadhi in 920.

The next important acarya was Alavandar or Yamunacarya, the

grandson of Nathamuni (916-1036). Even as a boy, he showed his
prodigious learning and skill when he accepted the challange of the
court pasòita of the Cola king made to his guru and easily
vanquished him in the learned assembly of the king by a clever
puzzle. He was at once greeted by the queen as Alavandar for
having conquered the proud pasòita, and was granted a portion of
the kingdom according to the terms of the polemic duel. He lived a
life of luxurious ease, when a sudden change came over him after an
interview with the old teacher Rama Miñra, Nathamuni's disciple,
who intimated to him the news of the patrimony bequeathed to him
by his grandfather in the form of a valuable treasure hidden between
two rivers. He eagerly followed the guru to take possession of the
treasure, and when he was shown the shining shrine at Sri Rangam,
he became converted, was overjoyed and took sannyasa. His whole
life was dedicated thereafter to spirituality and service, and he made
Sri Rangam a veritable Vaikuntha on earth. He wrote few important
works, the most important of these is Siddhitraya consisting of three
parts Atmasiddhi, ISvarasiddhi and Saàvitsiddhi each being devoted
to one of the three fundamental doctrines of of ViSiñTadvaita.
Yamunacarya's Stotra-ratna, a masterpiece of lyrical devotion,
reveals his discerning faith in Narayasa and Sri and the intense
humility of the philosophic devotee who pours forth his heartfelt
bhakti soul stirring verses to which there is no parallel in Stotra
literature.
B SRI RAMANUJACARYA
I. His Life

Sri Ramanuja was born in Sriperumbudur, near Kanci, in 1017 as the

son of Asuri KeSava Somayajin and Kantimati, sister of Sri
Sailapürsa, the grandson of Yamunacarya. From his childhood he
showed signs of Vedantic genius and he was sent to Kanci to have a
course of studies in Vedanta under the great Advaita teacher
Yadavaprakaña. It is said that his teachings did not satisfy the
budding ViSiñTadvaita.
One day, when Yadavaprakaña explained the Taittiriya text - satyam
jnanam anantam brahma - in terms of absolute identity, the disciple
felt that the identity was on explanation at all and reconstructed the
text by saying that Brahman is and has satya, jnana and ananda as
His essential ontological attributes. The guru's exposition at another
time of the Upaniñadic description - kapyasam - of the lotus to
which the beautiful eyes of Bhagavan were compared by translating
that expression as 'the red posterior of the monkey' brought tears of
grief to the eyes of Ramanujacarya, and he immediately corrected
the ugly analogy by giving the true meaning of that term as 'the well
developed lotus that blossoms at day-dawn'.
These reinterpretations aroused the anger and jealousy of the teacher
who, in consultance with some trusted disciples, arranged for a
pilgrimage to Benares with the evil idea of drowning Ramanuja in
the Ganga and attributing it to an accident. On the way, Ramanuja
was informed of the conspiracy and he escaped in the dead of night
while they were passing through a wilderness.
Weary and footsore, Ramanuja wandered several days till a hunter
and a huntress met him and offered to take him to Kanci, which they
said was their destination too. When they were very near Kanci the
couple suddenly disappeared after asking Ramanuja for a little water
and on his looking around, the lofty towers of Lord Varadaraja in
Kanci greeted his wondering eyes. Ramanuja at once realized that
Lord Varada and His consort had rescued him in that miraculous
manner and as they had asked him for water he made it a point from
that day onwards to fetch a potful of water every day from a well
near the spot they disappeared, to be used in their daily puja.
Yadavaprakaña later on became a disciple of Ramanuja. At this time,
saint Tirukkacci Nambi had daily contact and converse with the
Lord, and Ramanuja came under his spiritual influence.
Ramanuja never met Yamunacarya face to face though the latter had
seen Ramanuja and, and unwilling to disturb his studies, had blessed
him from a distance. Five of Yamunacarya's disciples imparted the
teachings of Yamunacarya to young Ramanuja who was to become
the chief propagator of ViSiñTadvaita.
To dedicate himself wholly to the cause of religion and the service of
humanity, he joined the sannyasa order and became yatiraja or the
prince of sannyasis on account of his austere and ascetic life. While
he settled down at Sri Rangam and prepared himself to carry out his
mission, he had to meet an Advaitic controversialist called
Yajnamürti, and seventeen days disputation on the opponent was
defeated.
He started on a pilgimage round the country from RameSvara to
Badrinnath by the West coast and returned via the East coast. With
his ever faithfull disciple KureSa, he reached Sri Nagar and secured
a manuscript copy of the Bodhayana våtti, which KureSa, with his
prodigious memory, was able to learn by heart even at the very first
reading. He was thus able to bring out his Sri-bhañya by literally
following tradition and is said to have earned the title of Bhañya-
kara in Kashmir from Sarasvati herself.
At this time occured the persecution of the Vaiñsavas by the Cola
king, Kolottunga Cola I, who, in his bigoted zeal for the spread of
Saivism, tried to repress the Vaiñsavas by capital punishment. As
KureSa and the venerable Mahapürsa refused to change their faith,
their eyes were plucked out. Ramanuja's retirement to Melkote at
this critical period was an epoch in its religious history, as it led to
the conversion of a large number of Jains and also of Vitthaladeva,
the king of the Kausalas, followed by the construction of the city of
Melkote and the construction of a temple for Yadavadri-pati.
His return to Sri Rangam in 1118 after an absence of two decades
was greeted with great joy by the whole Sri-Vaiñsava community
and the remaining years of his life were devoted to the consolidation
of his missionary work by organizing temple worship and
establishing seventy four spiritual centres in different parts of the
country, presided over by his disciples, to popularize ViSiñTadvaita.
Sri Ramanujacarya passed away in 1137 full of honours after a long
span of 120 years.
II. Sri Ramanuja's Works

Nine works are credited to Sri Ramanuja:

1) Vedartha-sangraha - a concise statement of the philosophical
doctrines of the Vedas, with special references to important
passages in the Upaniñads.

2) Vedanta-sara (‘The essence of the Vedanta’) a very brief

commentary on the Vedanta-sütra.

3) Vedanta -dipa (‘Lamp of the Vedas’) a longer commentary, but still

brief, on the Vedanta-sütra.

4) Sri-bhañya (‘The beautiful commentary’) a fairly comprehensive

commentary on the Vedanta-sütra which systematically refutes all
schools of thought, heterodox as well as orthodox, other than
ViSiñTadvaita, and constitutes the main philosophical treatise on
this particular branch of Vedanta.

5) Sarasagati-gadya a prayer in poetic prose, based on unbounded

faith in the Lord's grace and describing complete surrender to His
will.

6) Sri-ranga-gadya another prayer in poetic prose, describing the

famous shrine at Sri Rangam and the gracious presence of the Lord
there as the deity.

7) Sri-Vaikuntha-gadya yet another prose poem, describing the glories

of the Supreme abode and the beatitude of liberation.

8) Gita-bhañya - a commentary on Bhagavad-gita.

9) Nitya-grantha - a manual of everyday worship and devotion.

C VISIÑTADVAITA VEDANTA PHILOSOPHY
I. Meaning of the Term ViSiñTadvaita

The system of philosophy as expounded by Sri Ramanujacarya is

called ViSiñTadvaita. The term advaita means non-dualism
emphasising the oneness of the ultimate Reality. Though all schools
of thought upholding monism agree that the ultimate Reality is one
only, they differ widely from one another when it comes to
determining the sense in which Reality is one. The fundamental
problem with monism is to account for the world of plurality as well
as the infinite number of souls. The issue with which a monism is
confronted is how does the 'one' become 'many' and how is the one
Reality related to the manifold universe of matter and spirit? There
are two ways of resolving this important metaphysical problem.
According to one view, which upholds absolute monism as
propounded by Sankaracarya, the universe is not ultimately real but
a phenomenal appearance of Reality. The ultimate Reality is
absolutely one in the sense that it does not admit any kind of
differentiaton, either internal or external. Such an absolute identity
would imply denial of ultimate reality to individual souls and the
universe. This type of monism advocated by Sankaracarya is known
as Advaita Vedanta.
According to the second view held by Ramanujacarya, the ultimate
Reality, though one, is not the Absolute without any differentiation
since such a transcendental indifferentiated Being is inconceivable
and also logically untenable. We have to admit the reality of the
universe with which experience the external world. Accordingly,
Ramanuja acknowledges three fundamental real entities - matter
(acit), soul (cit) and God (ISvara) - and on the basis of the principle
of organic relation, upholds that ultimate Reality is one as a unity.
ISvara as the creator of the universe is the immanent ground of
existence and also the inner self of all things in the universe and as
such He sustains and controls cit and acit. Cit and acit depend in
ISvara for their very existence and are organically related to ISvara
in the same way as the physical body is related to the soul within.
The oneness of Reality is to be understood not in the sense of
absolute identity but as an organic unity. Brahman, alone, as
organically related to the entire cit and acit, is the one ultimate
 Reality. Though there is absolute difference between ISvara and the
other reals and also among the individual souls and matter, the
ultimate Reality is considered one because as an organic unity it is
one. In this sense, the system of Vedanta expounded by Sri
Ramanujacarya is described as ViSiñTadvaita which means oneness
of the organic unity.

II. Fundamental Metaphysical Categories

a) Theory of Apåthak-siddhi

According to this theory, the relation between substance and its

attributes are inseparable. For instance, in blue lotus, the blueness
which is a quality cannot be separated from the flower. When an
object is perceived it is seen as inherently connected with the
quality. Being inherent in substance, the attributes form an integral
part of it. Substance, which is the basis for the attributes does not
however depend on them for its existance, but nevertheless it needs
attributes because the svarüpa of an entity is determinable only
through its essential attributes.
According to ViSiñTadvaita, a svarüpa devoid of attributes is a non-
entity. The relation of apåthak-siddhi is obtained not only between
substance and attribute but also between two substances. In this
way, the physical body (Sarira) and the soul within (atma), though
both are substances (dravya), are inseparable. The very concept of
Sarira necesSarily presupposes its relation to a soul. A body as a
living organism cannot exist by itself without a soul to sustain it.

b) The Concept of Body-Soul Relation

The physical body is necesSarily dependant upon the soul for its
existence; it ceases to be a body the moment the soul departs from
it. It is wholly controlled by the soul. It exists wholly for the use of
the self. Because there is an intimate or inseparable relation between
 the self and the body, it is possible that the latter can be supported,
controlled and used for its purpose by the former.
On the basis of this theory of body-soul relation the ViSiñTadvaita
Vedanta maintains that the entire universe of cit and acit stands in
relation of the body and soul. All sentient and nonsentient beings
constitute the Sarira or body of ISvara in the technical sense that
the former are wholly dependent on the latter for their existence;
they are completely controlled by ISvara and they subserve the
purpose of the Supreme Being. ISvara is called the atma or sariri
because He is the ground or support (adhara) for the universe,. He
is the controller (niyanta) and uses it for His own purpose. The three
concepts used to explain comprehensively the organic relationships
that exists between Brahman and universe of cit and acit are:
adhara-adheya (the sustainer and sustained), niyanta-niyamya (the
controller and controlled) and Señi-Seña (the self subsistent and
dependent).

c) The Concept of Cause and Efffect

The concept of cause and effect is the most fundamental

metaphysical category. It assumes greater importance than other
concepts as it provides the key to understanding of the knotty
problem of how the 'one' becomes 'many'. The Ñad-vidya of
Chandogya Upaniñad asks: "What is that by knowing which
everything else is known?" According one school of thought, cause
and effect are not the same. The effect is a product of the cause but
the former is not already existent in the cause. This is known as
asat-karya-vada, attributed to the Nyaya-VaiSeñika system.
According to another school of thought, the effect exists in the
cause in a potential form and it is only a manifestation of what
already exists. This is the sat-karya-vada held by the Sankhya
System.
There is another view which does not accept either of the above
theories. The effect does not exist in the cause nor is it distinct from
the cause. The two are different states of one and the same
substance(entity). This is the theory of ViSiñTadvaita Vedanta
which is regarded as a modified sat-karya-vada. As against these
accepted views, we have other theories of casuality which question
 the very basic concept of cause and effect. Thus, according to the
Carvaka school, there is no such thing as cause and effect. The
Buddhists for whom everything is momentary also deny the very
existence of cause and effect as enduring entities.
The Advaita school, though they accept the concept of cause and
effect, deny ultimate reality to it because causal relation is logically
unintelligible. [The argument here is that two entities - Brahman
and the universe - as real with different nature cannot be identical. If
one is real (Brahman) and the other illusory (the universe), then it is
possible to regard them as non- distinct].
III. Pramasas and their Validity

Pramasa is defined as that which is the mean of prama or valid

knowledge. According to ViSiñTadvaita, a knowledge to be valid
should fulfil two conditions. It should reveal things as they are and
should also serve the practical interests of life. Pramasa therefore
signifies the essential means of arriving at valid knowledge.
The ViSiñTadvaita admits three pramasas; perception (pratyakña),
inference (anumana) and verbal testimony (Sabda). All the three
pramasas reveal the truth and are therefore equally valid. Of the
three, pratyakña is an important pramasa because it serves as the
basis for the other two pramasas. Inference depends on perception
for establishing the logical concomitance. Verbal testimony also
depends on hearing of the sound of the words and the
comprehension of their meaning.
In view of this, pratyakña is regarded as upajivya or that which offers
subsistance, and anumana as well as Sabda as upajivaka or that
which subsists on another. This means that inference and verbal
testimony cannot contradict what is proved by perception.
According to ViSiñTadvaita, if the knowledge arises from anumana
and Sabda is opposed to perceptual experience, the former cannot
be taken as valid. It does not mean that scriptural statements which
conflict with perceptual experience have to be rejected as invalid.
But, on the contrary, they have to be accepted but interpreted in
such a way as to overcome the conflict. Thus, the ViSiñTadvaita
gives equal importance to all three pramasas through which we can
get to know the reality.

IV. Theory of Knowledge

a) Knowledge as an Attribute of jiva

The jiva, which is a permanent spiritual entity, is of the nature of

consciousness (jnana-svarüpa). It means that knowledge or
consciousness is his very essence (svarüpa-jnana), or in other
 words, the jiva is a knowing subject. But besides this, according to
ViSiñTadvaita, the jiva has another type of knowledge by which the
objects outside are revealed to him. That means - the jiva is
knowledge, and also, the jiva has knowledge.
This kind of knowledge which can reveal the objects outside is an
attribute of the jiva, and it is called dharma-bhüta-jnana. There is a
logical justification for maintaining dharma-bhüta-jnana as distinct
from svarüpa-jnana. According to the Sastras, the jiva is eternal and
immutable, and as such he cannot undergo modification, whereas,
knowledge is subject to constant modification, as it is confirmed by
our experience. Knowledge manifests itself when it comes into
contact with objects through mind and sense organs and it ceases to
function whenever it is not in contact with any object. If svarüpa-
jnana alone is accepted, then the modifications that take place in
respect of knowledge will have to be credited to the jiva and this
would go against his immutable character. According to Ramanuja,
the relation of jiva to knowledge is comparable to the flame (of a
lamp) and its luminosity.

b) Knowledge is Self-Luminous

Knowledge reveals itself as well as the object. This is described as

svayam-prakaña. It means, according to the ViSiñTadvaita, that
jnana, at the time of revealing an object, does not require to be
manifested by another jnana. It is like light which reveals the object
around it but does not require another light for it to be revealed.

c) Knowledge is Eternal

Since the self is eternal (nitya), knowledge, which is its essential

attribute (dharma), is also eternal. The view that knowledge is
eternal has certain important implications. It signifies that
knowledge persists in all states of our experience including the state
of suñupti (deep sleep).
Another point is that jnana endures as in the state of bondage of jiva,
even in the state of mokña. During the state of bondage, jnana is
 causually determined by the law of karma and as such its function is
restricted. But in the state of mukti, it is infinite and all-pervasive
(vibhu). The jiva then becomes omniscient (sarvajna).

V. Knowledge and the External World

As explained earlier, knowledge is relational, and therefore it

necesSarily implies a subject to which it belongs and an object to
which it refers. This theory presupposes above all the reality of the
external object and its existence independent of knowledge.
It is the function of knowledge to reveal the external world to the
knowing subject. Jnana radiates from the jiva, comes into contact
with the object through the manas and sense organs, and reveals it.
The knowledge of the object thus arises when jnana comes into
contact with an object through the inner and outer senses. This is the
ViSiñTadvaita theory of knowledge.
A subject-object relation is called in this philosophy - viñaya-viñayi-
bhava sambandha. Viñaya means the object and viñayi means the
subject or consciousness. By the fact that the two are related
whenever cognition arises, the relationship is described as one of
subject-object. It is a unique relation or svarüpa-sambandha.
Although the individual self or jivatma is the subject which cognises
the object presented to it by knowledge, the self does not have
direct relation to the external object. The direct contact or saàyoga
takes place between knowledge and the object outside it whenever
knowledge is in contact with the object through manas or the
internal cognitive organ and the senses. The cognitive relation is
thus temporal and direct. A saàyoga or external relation is possible,
because in this system knowledge is also regarded as dravya or
substance.

VI. The Doctrine of Jiva

The jiva or the individual self is an eternal spiritual entity and is

distinct from the Supreme Self or Brahman. Even in the state of
mokña, it does not lose its individuality. Jivas are infinite in number
 and they are essentially of the nature of knowledge (jnana-
svarüpa).
Some different theories of jiva: the Carvaka view that body itself is
jiva; the Nyaya theory that jiva is not of the nature of consciousness;
the Advaita view that jiva , which is pure consciousness, is identical
with Brahman; the VaiSeñika view that the jiva is all pervasive
(vibhu); the Jaina view that the jiva is of the size of the body which
it occupies.
a) Jiva as Different from Body and Mind

When we say 'my hand', 'my leg', the hand, the leg, etc appear to be
different from 'myself'. In the same way when we get the experience
in the form 'my body', the body which is the aggregate of the
various organs should be considered as distinct from the self.
Then a question arises: How do we explain the expression 'myself'
(mama-atma)? Would it mean that atma is different from the self?
As self and atma cannot be different, such an expression has to be
understood in its secondary sense. That is, the atma here means the
mind and not the self. That the body and self are different is evident
from various scriptural texts. For example, the Sruti says that a
person who has performed meritorious deeds will be reborn with
merit. Similarly, a person who has done wicked deeds will be
reborn into evil. Such scriptural statements would become
meaningless if the self is not admitted to be different from the body.
Jiva is also different from the mind (manas) because it is established
by pramasas that manas serve as an instrument (karasa) for
recollection of past experience by jiva. What is a karasa for an
agent cannot itself be the agent karta.

b) Jiva as the Subject of Knowledge

Jiva is not a non-sentient entity (jaòa) with knowledge as its accidental

and external quality. Instead jiva is an eternal entity of the nature of
knowledge (jnana-svarüpa) and the subject of knowledge (jnata).
However, jiva is not merely jnana-svarüpa, as Advaita says, but it
also possesses knowledge as an essential attribute. It is the substrate
for knowledge, which means that jiva is also the knowing subject.
Jnana is defined as that which manifests something (artha-prakañah).
This characteristic feature of jnana is common to both the substrate
(atma) and its dharma (jnana). The former reveals itself and the
latter manifests objects. As both reveal something, the term jnana is
applicable to both. In this case, these two entities are of the same
nature but one is acting as a substance and the other as attribute. As
in the case of the flame of a lamp (dipa) and its luminosity
 (prabha) are the same character since the element of fire or
brightness (tejas) is common to both.
The jiva constituted of knowledge which is known as dharmi-jnana
or substantive-knowledge, reveals itself and not the external objects;
it knows what it is revealed to it. On the other hand, knowledge as
the essential attribute of the self known as dharma-bhüta-jnana or
attributive knowledge reveals itself as well as the external objects to
the self and does not know them.

c) Jiva as Self-Luminous

Self-luminosity or svayam-prakañatva of atma is not to be

understood in the sense that atma reveals itself as 'I' to all at all
times. It reveals itself as 'I' to each individual, whereas for others it
is known through their knowledge as 'he' or 'you'.
If atma which is nitya is self-luminous, it should manifest itself
always. But, some say, in suñupti or deep sleep we do not have the
experience of anything,and it is not therefore possible to assert that
atma reveals itself in that state. Against this argument it is explained
that even during the state of deep sleep atma reveals itself as'I'. This
is evident from the experience which arises in the form 'I slept
happily' soon after waking up. This experience cannot be generated
by mind because in this state of deep sleep it is inactive. Then, it is
an experience of the self in the form of enjoying its own bliss
(sukha).

d) Jiva is Eternal

Are jivas eternal? There is a theory which says that Brahman alone is
eternal and all else including the jivas originate from Brahman and
dissolve in it. In support of this it is quoted the famous Chandogya
Upaniñad text which says that in the beginning there was being, one
only without a second. Accordingly, it is believed that jivas come
into existence or are produced at the time of evolution, in the same
way as acit or matter is brought into existence. Against this view,
there are numerous scriptural texts which speak of atma as nitya and
 that it is not subject to any origin or distinction. Such texts that
affirm the contrary have to be understood to mean that jiva are born
in the sense that they become associated with the physical bodies.
As it is made explicit in the Bhagavad-gita, the birth of jiva is only
its association with a physical body and death is its disassociation
from it.
The Buddhists hold the view that at each moment jiva undergoes
change. This would mean that jiva which is constantly in a state of
flux cannot be a permanent entity. If such a theory is accepted, there
would be no scope for human endeavour to achieve something at a
latter period.
It may be said that jivas continue to exist till they achieve mokña and
that thereafter they would cease to exist. The ViSiñTadvaita does
not accept this view because the jivas do exist in the state of mokña
without losing their individuality. When the jivas become free from
the shackles of karma, they manifest themselves in their true nature
in the state of mokña.

e) Jiva is Karta and Bhokta

We have already seen that jiva is a knowing subject (jnata). The same
jiva who is the knower is also the agent of action (karta) and
enjoyer of pleasure and pain (bhokta). This means the same atma
who performs karma also enjoys the fruit of action.
The Advaita philosophy however does not admit that the true self
which is pure undifferentiated conscious is the knower since as
knowership involves change, while the self must be immutable. The
functions such as knowing, feeling and willing are the
characteristics of the empirical ego, the consciousness conditioned
by the internal organ (antaùkarasa). The cognisership (jnatåtva)
actually belongs to the internal organ. The self appears to be the
knower because of the superimposition of the internal organ on it.
This theory does not have foundation because it is proved that
superimposition of cognisership on the self is an impossibility since
the self, according to Advaita, is an indifferential being. There are
many other details for proving this point, but an important point
should be considered whether or not the act of knowing involves
change or some modification in respect of the individual self, which
 according to the sastras is immutable (nirvikara). For explaining
this question, the ViSiñTadvaita philosophy affirms that whatever
modification take place, these apply to attributive knowledge
(dharma-bhüta-jnana), which is distinct from the self and, in this
way, the atma remains unaffected by them.
It may be noted that jiva is regarded as jnata or knower in the sense
that it is the aSraya or substrate for knowledge through which all
experiences take place. By being aSraya for jnana which is subject
to modifications, jiva is not subjected to any change. In the same
way, kartåtva and bhoktåtva admitted in jiva do not involve change
in it. Jiva is karta or doer in the sense that it is the aSraya or
substrate for kåti or effort.
The same explanation holds good for jiva being the bhokta. Bhoga is
the experience in the form of pleasure and pain. Pleasure and pain
are different states (avasthas) of jnana. Pleasure is an agreeable
disposition of the mind (anukülatva-jnana) and pain is the
disagreeable one (pratikülatva-jnana). As jiva is the aSraya for such
states of experience, it is regarded as bhokta or enjoyer of pleasure
or pain. The pain involved in such mental disposition applies to the
attributive knowledge (dharma-bhüta-jnana) and not to jiva.

f) Theory of Free-Will and Determination

If the action of jiva is controlled by Paramatma, does the jiva have

any freedom at all to act? If jiva has no freedom to act, the scriptural
injunctions enjoying duties to be performed by the individual can
have no significance.
A distinction is drawn between the initial action of the individual and
the subsequent activity. In all human effort, the individual initially
wills to do a thing. To this extent he is free to do what he desires.
Based on this initial action, the subsequent action which follows it is
approved by ISvara. By according such an approval, ISvara incites
the individual to proceed further. ISvara gives his approval to the
activity initiated by an individual, he does not become the karta, the
doer. The real karta is the individual.

g) Plurality of the Individual Selves

 The jivas which are eternal spiritual entities are infinite in number.
They are not only different from one individual to another but are
also distinct from Brahman, the Supreme Self.

h) Jiva as Asu

Jiva is described in the Sastras to be infinitesimal, or asu. The

monadic character of jiva is its natural form. That is, it is not caused
or conditioned by any physical limitation. ISvara is vibhu or all-
pervasive but He is described as infinitesimal in the inner recess of
the heart. Here the anutva of Paramatma is not His natural character
but is caused by physical limitation (aupadhika) No such limitation
is mentioned in respect of jivatma. Therefore anutva of jiva is its
natural state.
While describing jiva as infinitesimal, the Upaniñad uses the
expression that jiva is ananta or infinite. In another place, jiva is
described as nitya and sarvagataù, that is, it is eternal and pervades
everywhere. This gives the impression that jiva is vibhu or all-
pervasive. But the ViSiñTadvaita points out that such description of
jiva as pervading everywhere are to be understood to mean that jiva
as a spiritual entity could enter into any material substance without
obstruction.
Even though jiva is not all-pervasive, its attributive jnana is infinite
and all-pervasive like the light of the sun. The infinite character
(anantya) applies not to jiva but to its attributive knowledge. This
means that jiva is asu, whereas its knowledge is capable of
becoming infinite. In the state of mukti, when the jiva is totally free
from karma it becomes omniscient.
i) Jiva and Brahman

ISvara and jiva are two spiritual entities which are absolutely real and
also distinct. The SvetaSvatara Up. says: “There are two, the one
knowing, the other not knowing, both unborn, the one a ruler, the
other not a ruler”. The Musòaka Up. describes jiva as one caught up
in bondage, whereas ISvara is free from it. The Antaryami
Brahmasa of the Båhad-aranyaka Up. refers to Brahman as the
indweller of jivatma. The Vedanta-sütra states categorically that
Brahman is different from jiva which is subject to karma.
The scriptural texts also speak of non-difference between Brahman
and jiva. Thus says the Chandogya Up.: “Thou art that” (tat-tvam-
asi). The Båhad-aranyaka Up. equally asserts the identity: “This self
is Brahman” (ayam-atma-brahma). How do we account for such
texts which emphasise non-difference or identity of Brahman and
jiva?
Ramanuja does not accept the bhedabheda theory because, according
to him, it would ammount to the admission of the defects of jiva in
Brahman. Nor does he subscribe either to the view of the dualist
emphasising only difference or to that of monist upholding only
non-difference, because in either case the validity of all the
Upaniñadic text cannot be maintained.
Then, Ramanuja resorts to a sütra which acknowledges the two
conflicting views about jiva and Brahman as different (nana) and
also non-different (anyatha ca), and uses the expression ‘aàSa’ to
explain the relation of jiva and Brahman. (Vedanta-sütra II.3.42:
aàSo nanavyapdeSat anyatha ca...) while commenting on this sütra,
Ramanuja states that jiva is to be accepted as an integral part (aàSa)
of Brahman in order to account for its non-difference as well
difference from Brahman.
By adopting the metaphysical category of substance and attribute and
the concept of apåthak-siddhi, Ramanuja explains the relation of
jiva to Brahman. From ontological stand point Ramanuja explains
the relation of jiva to Brahman on the basis of the concept of body-
soul relation (Sarira-Sariri-bhava). Brahman as the material cause
of the universe and ground of all existence is the adhara and the
jivas are described as adheya, that which depends on it for its
existence. Brahman as the immanent spirit and the inner controller
of the universe of cit and acit is the niyanta and jiva is the niyamya,
 one which is controlled by ISvara. From the ethical and religious
stand point, jiva is described as Seña, as one who subserves God,
and God as Señin, the Master of all. This threefold relationship is
described as Sarira-Sariri-sambandha, or the relation of the body to
the soul. Thus jiva is an integral part (aàSa) or mode (prakara) of
Brahman and it is therefore distinct but inseparable from it.

VII. The Doctrine of ISvara.

In this section we are going to deal with three very important

philosophical issues. The foremost one is whether or not the
Absolute of metaphysics or Brahman described in the Upaniñads as
the ultimate Reality is the same as ISvara or the personal God of
religion who is conceived as the creator and controller of the
universe. The second important issue is whether Brahman which is
regarded as the material cause of the universe (upadana-karasa) by
the Upaniñads undergoes any transformation or does it appear itself
as the phenomenal universe owing to cosmic ignorance (avidya).
The third issue is whether it is possible to prove the existence of
God by means of logic arguments without resorting to scriptural
testimony.
The first issue is related to a crucial problem in Vedanta metaphysics
which raises the question whether there are two realities, the one
higher which is pure Being, the Absolute of metaphysics, and the
other lower which is of lesser reality. This involves the question
whether Brahman is nirgusa, the undifferentiated transcendental
Being or sagusa, a God endowed with attributes.
The second issue is related to the major controversy in Vedanta as to
whether vivarta-vada or the theory of the illusory appearance of
Brahman as the phenomenal universe is sound and tenable. This
involves a critical examination of the doctrine of avidya as
formülated by the Advaita Vedanta in all its aspects including the
issue whether the universe is illusory in character.
The third issue refers to the controversy between Naiyayikas and
Vedantins whether or not the existence of God can be proved by
means of logical arguments. While Naiyayikas hold that the
existence of God can be proved by means of logic, Vedantins
 maintain that revealed scripture (Sruti) is the sole authority for
understanding the nature and existence of God.

a) Proofs for the Existence of God

Those who do not accept the existence of God argue that the concept
of God as the creator of the universe is untenable, because God
does not possess a body for the purpose of creating the universe.
But such arguments are not valid because, as stated in the Sruti,
ISvara can create the universe by his will (sankalpa) without the aid
of a body. Neither inference (anumana) nor the statements of the
atheists can disprove the existence of God. Sruti or revealed
scripture is the sole authority for knowing the existence of God.
The Advaitin questions the view that Brahman is to be known
through revealed scripture. According to him, Brahman as the
transcendental reality is self established and is beyond all speach
and thought. It cannot be grasped by the intellect. Thus the
Upaniñadic texts say (Musò. Up. I.1.5 yat tad adreSyam agrahyam)
that reality is unperceivable and ungraspable. Another text states -
(Tait. Up. II.9.1l yato vaco nivartante aprapya manasa saha) “From
whom speech and mind turn away, because they are unable to reach
him”. Brahman is therefore avedya - beyond all empirical pramasas
and cognition.
The Vaiñsavas criticises this view. It is not correct to say Brahman
cannot be know by means of scriptural texts. The very Upaniñads
say Brahman is only knowable by Sruti. Thus the KaTha Up. (II-15)
states: sarve vedaù yat padam amananti - "All Vedas speak of this
nature". There are several texts that say Brahman is describable by
words and also knowable. (Chand.Up. I.6.7.: tasyoditi nama;
Båhat.Up. 4.3.6.: atha namadheyam satyasya satyam). The
Upaniñadic text which speaks of Brahman as beyond words and
thought can only mean that Brahman which is infinite cannot be
adequately described by words, and cannot be also know in all its
fullness by our finite mind. If this interpretation were not accepted,
there would be conflict with both the earlier and later statements
made in the same Upaniñadic passage.
Another impersonalist argument is that the terms Brahman, atma, etc
mentioned in the Upaniñads do not have a primary import
 (mukhyartha) in respect of Brahman, but they only have a
secondary (lakñasa). That is, these words do not refer directly to
Brahman but indirectly. This is explained in the analogy of the
moon seen through the branch of a tree (Sakha-candra-nyaya). The
moon visible as if close to the tree branch is made use of to identify
the real moon which is far distant in the sky. Though there is no
connection between the bough and the moon , the former serves the
purpose of identifying the moon in the sky. In the same way, the
term Brahman in the Upaniñads serves to convey the knowledge of
Brahman without having direct reference to Brahman.
According to ViSiñTadvaita, there is no difficulty at all in accepting
primary import in respect of Parabrahman, the higher reality
postulated by the impersonalists. The word Brahman, atma etc and
all the Upaniñadic texts related to the discussion on the nature of
Brahman refer directly to the higher Brahman. If it is argued that
direct reference is only to the lower Brahman (apara-Brahman),
then the statements relating to the higher Brahman become invalid,
and the very existence of such a Brahman would be questionable. It
is impossible to maintain that Brahman is unknowable. Even if
Brahman were the content of the indirect reference, it would
become the object of knowledge to that extent. It is therefore more
appropriate and logical to accept that Brahman is known through
the scripture and that scripture is the sole authority for proving the
existence.

b) The Nature of Ultimate Reality

According to the ViSiñTadvaita Vedanta, the ultimate reality or

Brahman referred to in the Upaniñads is the personal God of
religion. It rejects the theory of two Brahmans admitted by Advaita
Vedanta the higher Brahman (Para) which is the Absolute Being
devoid of all attributes and a lower Brahman (apara) endowed with
attributes which is of lesser reality. There is only one Brahman
which, as the Vedanta Sütras clearly point out, is the creater of the
universe and which is qualified with infinite auspicious attributes.
Such a reality is none other than the personal God of religion. Thus,
Sri Ramanujacarya assserts that the term Brahman denotes
Puruñottama, the Supreme Person or self, who is essentially free
 from all imperfections and possesses infinite auspicious attributes os
unsurpassable excellence.
The Mahopaniñad I.1 says: eko ha vai Narayasa asit “Narayasa
alone existed in the beginning.” Acccording to the gramatical
principle formulated by Panini the term Narayasa is treated as a
specific proper name (saàjna-pada) and is applicable to one
specific Being only but not to any other entity like the general terms
such as Brahman, sat and atma. It is therefore concluded that
Brahman referred to in the Upaniñads as the cause of the universe is
the same as Narayasa. Further the Subala Upaniñad describes
Narayasa as antaratma the inner controller of all beings in the
universe. Only that which is the creator of the universe could be the
antaryami or inner controller of all beings. Several texts confirm
this point. On the basis of the Sastras it is then asserted that
Narayasa is the very Brahman described in the Upaniñads as the
creator of the universe. And Viñsu the Supreme God of religion as
upheld in the Vedas, is used as synonymous.

c) The Theory Of Nirgusa Brahman

The Advaita advocates the theory of two Brahmans - para and apara -
or the higher and lower. This theory is based primarily on the
strength of a few scripual texts. There are Upaniñadic statements
which describe Brahman as devoid of qualities. There are also
statements which speak of Brahman as qualified by numerous
attributes. These two kinds of statements are known as nirgusa
Srutis and sagusa Srutis.
The impersonalists consider that the nirgusa Srutis are of greater
validity than the sagusa Srutis. For proving this theory they use the
MimaàSa principle of interptetation apaccheda-nyaya , the principle
of the subsequent sublating the earlier.
But, on the other side, the ViSiñTadvaita does not accept the theory of
two Brahmans. Taking its firm stand on scriptural evidence, it
asserts that the ultimate reality is Brahman as qualified by numerous
attributes. It would not be appropriate to accept the validity of a few
scriptural texts which speak of Brahman as devoid of qualities and
discard the large number of sagusa Srutis as invalid in the basis of
apaccheda-nyaya. Vedanta DeSika points out that instead of
apaccheda-nyaya in this case, another principle of interpretation has
to be applied .
According to the application of utsargapavada nyaya, if some texts
affirm that Brahman possesses qualities, and others deny the same,
the later should be understood to mean the denial of the qualities
other than those mentioned in the former. In other words, the
implication of the negative texts is that Brahman is devoid of such
inauspicious attributes as changes, karma, etc but not that it is
devoid of all characteristics. Such an interpretation, though it
restricts the import of the negative texts to some extent, maintains
the validity of both the sagusa and nirgusa Srutis. As the contents
of the two texts apply to different aspects of reality, there is
absolutely no conflict between them. Thus, on the basis of scriptural
evidence it is not possible to establish that Brahman is nirgusa and
that it is higher than sagusa Brahman.
Sri Ramanujacarya has repeatedly stated in his Sri-bhañya that the
concept of nirviSeña-vastu, an entity totally devoid of all
differentiation, whether it be a physical object or consciousness or
even the Ultimate reality is untenable both on logical and
metaphysical grounds. From the standpoint of logic and
epistemology it is impossible to prove the existence of a nirviSeña-
vastu by any of the accepted pramasas. All knowledge reveals an
object only as qualified. Such and undifferentiated reality as being
beyond all thought and speech is a metaphysical abstraction.
Therefore ViSiñTadvaita rejects this concept of nirgusa Brahman
and upholds that the Ultimate Reality is only a saviSeña Brahman
which is the same as the personal God of religion.

d) God and His Attributes

According to ViSiñTadvaita, Brahman conceived as saviSeña implies

that it also possesses a bodily form (vigraha) and is qualified by
attributes (gusa) and the properties (vibhutis) which comprise the
transcendental realm as well as the cosmic universe of sentient souls
and non-sentient matter. As far as the body of Brahman is
concerned, it is not governed by karma as the bodies of the bound
individual soul are, but is assumed by ISvara out of His free will
(iccha) for the benefit of His devotees to enable them to offer
prayers and do meditation. The bodily form assumed by ISvara in
His eternal abode is nitya. It is constituted of pure sattvika stuff
 known as Suddha-sattva. There are several pramasa supporting the
existence of a nitya-vigraha or umblemished and imperishable
bodily form for ISvara.
According to ViSiñTadvaita, every entity in the universe, both physical
and ontological, consists of two aspects; the substantive aspect
(svarüpa) which is dharmi and the attribute aspect (svabhava)
which is dharma. In the light of this statement , a question arises:
what is the svarüpa of Brahman?
Ramanuja says that these five distinguishing characteristics
determine the svarüpa of Brahman: 1) satyam (absolutely non-
conditioned existence); 2) jnana (eternal and non-contracted
knowledge); 3)anantam (not limited by space or time), from the text
(Tait.Up I.1) satyam jnanam anantam brahma; 4) anandam
(unsurpassable bliss), from the same text anandam brahmaso
vidvan and; 5) amalam (free from all imperfections).That entity
which is characterised by these five attributes is the svarüpa of
Brahman. In other words, when we speak of the svarüpa of
Brahman, we describe it as satyam or reality, jnanam or knowledge,
anantam or infinitude, anandam or bliss and amalam or purity.
When we speak of the essential characteristics of Brahman, we
describe them as satyatva, jnanatva, anantatva etc.
The Taittiriya Up. (III.1) offers another important definition of
Brahman: yato va imani bhütani jayante, yena jatani jivanti, yat
prayanty abhisamviSanti tad vijijnasasva tad brahmeti “that form
which all things are born, in which they live on being born. and
unto which they enter when they perish; that is Brahman”. It refers
to three fundemental functions of Brahman creation, sustenance and
dissolution of the universe. Also in Vedanta Sütra it is stated:
janmadyasya yataù. This charecteristic of Brahman as the creator of
the universe, though it is an important function of the Supreme
Being, does not constitute the svarüpa unlike satyata, jnanatra etc,
but the attributive or functional character of Brahman.
Besides the five distinguishing characteristics, six other important
attributes are also admitted in ISvara; jnana (knowledge, or more
specifically, dharma-bhüta-jnana of Brahman. He is omniscient,
sarvajna); bala (strength, or the quality by which ISvara supports
everything); aiSvarya (lordship, or the quality of being the creator
and controller of the universe); virya (virility refers to that quality of
ISvara who, in spite of his being the material cause of the universe,
remains unaffected by the changes, vikara); Sakti (power or that
 special quality through which ISvara causes the evolution of the
prakåti into the manifold universe); and tejas (splendour, which
means that ISvara does not depend on any external aids for creation,
maintenance and destruction of the universe).

e) The Five Manifestations of God

According to ViSiñTadvaita, God manifests Himself in five forms:

1) Para, the transcendental form.
2) Vyüha or the divine manifestation as Vasudeva, Sankarñasa,
Pradyumna and Aniruddha for purposes of meditation and
creation of the universe.
3) Vibhava or the several incarnations of God in the universal
manifestations such as Matsya, Kürma, Varaha, Rama etc
4) Archa, that is, entering into the substance chosen by devotees, as,
for example, idols in the sacred temples.
5) Antaryami, that is, residing within the inner recess of our hearts
for purposes of meditation.
ISvara is the creator of the universe. He creates the universe in
accordance with the karma of the individual soul. The purpose of
creation is two fold: compassion towards the suffering humanity
and divine sport. Creation of the universe is a divine sport from
which ISvara derives ananda. It also serves the purpose of
providing the individual soul caught up in the ocean of bondage and
opportunity to escape from it and attain the final release.
The question which is raised here is: if God is all compassionate and if
the universe is his own creation, why should there be so much
suffering in the universe and such wide disparities in the suffering
and happiness of individuals? This is explained, as in all theistic
Indian systems, as being the karma of each individual which varies
from to another according to past deeds. God dispenses good to
those who have done good deeds and evil to those who have done
evil deeds.
f) Material Causality of Brahman.

One of the major problems of Vedanta is to provide a satisfactory

explanation of the material causality of Brahman. The Upaniñads
indicate that Brahman is the material cause (upadana karasa) of the
universe on the anology of the lump of clay being the material cause
of the pot. On the strength of the Upaniñadic teaching all Vedantists
except Madhva accept that Brahman is the material cause of the
universe. The Sruti texts also categorically declare that Brahman is
immutable, that is, not subject to any kind of change. The causality
of Brahman thus needs to be accounted for without affecting the
svarüpa of Brahman. How is this to be done? Each school of
Vedanta attempts to offer an explanation in this regard. There are
three important theories of material causality of Brahman:
1) Brahman itself transforms into the universe - a view held by
Yadavaprakaña and Bhaskara. This is known as Brahma-
parisama-vada.
2) Brahman associated with cit and acit in their subtle form is the
material cause of the universe - this view is held by
ViSiñTadvaita and it may be regarded as modified Brahma-
parisama-vada.
3) Brahman as the basis of the illusory appearance of the universe
is its material cause. This is the Advaita view known as vivarta-
vada.

VIII. Brahman and Universe

a) Refutation of Vivarta-vada theory

Sri Ramanujacarya in his Sri-bhañya has levelled a seven-fold

objection against this doctrine (sapta-vidhanupapatti):

1) aSrayanupapatti: What is the locus or support of maya? Where

does avidya reside? If there is any such thing as maya or avidya,
we are justified in asking for its seat or abode. Verily, it cannot
 exist in Brahman, for then the unqualified monism of Brahman
would break down. Moreover, Brahman is said to be pure self-
luminous consciousness or knowledge and avidya means
ignorance. Then how can ignorance exist in knowledge? Again,
avidya cannot reside in the individual self, for the individuality of
the self is said to be the creation of avidya. How can the cause
depend on its affect? Hence avidya cannot exist either in Brahman
or the jiva. It is an illusory concept, a figment of the mayavadi's
imagination. If it resides anywhere, it resides only in the mind of
the mayavadi who has imagined this wonderful pseudo-concept,
this logic myth.

2) tirodhananupapatti: How can avidya conceal Brahman? If it does,

then Brahman is not self-conscious and self-luminious subject. If
Brahman is of the nature of self-luminosity and self proved
knowledge, ignorance cannot cover or veil its essence. It is as
absurd as to say that darkness can hide light or that night can act
as a veil on day.

3) svarüpanupapatti: What is the nature of avidya? Is it positive or

negative or both or neither? If it is positive how can it be avidya?
Avidya means ignorance and ignorance means absence of
knowledge. To regard ignorance as positive is to accept self
contradiction. Moreover, if ignorance is positive how can it be
ever destroyed? No positive entity can be destroyed. As the
mayavadi admits that ignorance is removed by knowledge,
ignorance can never be positive. And if avidya is negative, then
how can it project this world illusion on Brahman? To say that
avidya is both positive and negative is to embrace self-
contradiction. And to say that it is neither positive or negative is to
give up all logic.

4) anirvacaniyatvanupapatti: Avidya is defined by the mayavadi as

indefinable; it is described as indescribable. This is a clear self-
contradiction. To avoid this the mayavadi says that avidya is not
absolutely indescribable, that to call it ‘indescribable’ means that
'it cannot be described as either real or unreal'. But this is absurb.
This shows that the mayavadi is giving up all logic. How can a
thing be neither real or unreal? This is merely verbal jugglery.
Reality and unreality are both exhaustive and exclusive, They are
 contradictories not contraries. Between themselves they exhaust
all possibilities of predication. A thing must be either real or
unreal. There is no third alternative. All our cognitions relate to
either entities or non-entities. To refute this is to refuse to think.
To maintain a third alternative is to reject the well established
canons of logic - the law of contradiction and the law of excluded
middle.

5)Pramasanupapatti: By what pramasa or means of valid cognition

is avidya cognized? Avidya cannot be perceived , for perception
can give us either an entity or a non-entity. It cannot be inferred
for inference proceeds through a valid mark or middle term which
avidya lacks. Nor can it be maintained on the authority of the
scriptures for they declare maya to be a real wonderful power of
creating this wonderful world which really belongs to God.

6) Nivartakanupapatti: There is no remover of avidya. The

mayavadi believes that knowledge of the unqualified attributeless
Brahman removes avidya. But such knowledge is impossible.
Discrimination and determination are absolutely essential to
knowledge. Pure identity is a mere abstraction. Identity is always
qualified by diference and distinction. Hence there can be no
knowledge of an undifferentiated attributeless thing. And in the
absence of such knowledge nothing can remove avidya.

7) Nivåty-anupapatti: In the last point we were told that there is no

remover of avidya. This point tells us that there is no removal of
avidya. Avidya is said to be positive (bhava-rüpa) by the
mayavadi. How, then can a positive thing be removed? A thing
which positively exists cannot possibly be removed from
existence by knowledge. The bondage of the soul is due to karma
which is a concrete reality and cannot be removed by abstract
knowledge. It can be removed by karma, jnana, bhakti and
prasada. The ignorance of the soul is destroyed when the karmas
are destroyed and when the soul flings itself on the absolute mercy
of the Lord who, pleased by the souls constant devotion, extends
His grace to him.

IX. Sadhana and Mukti

a) Eligibility of Jiva for Mokña

While considering the basic nature of mokña, two basic questions

arise. First, is there scope at all for the soul to escape from the so-
called bondage? Secondly, if there be, would all souls be eligible for
mokña? The first question arises because of the accepted fact that
souls are caught up in the continious cycle of birth and deaths.
Karma which causes bondage to the soul is beginningless, and it
flows continously like the stream of a river. If jiva is caught up in
such a constant stream of births and deaths, would there be any
scope for its escape from it? There is a view, according which
karma, unless it is experienced, does not cease to have its influence
on the individual even after millions of kalpas. How then can jiva
escape from bondage?
It is no doubt true that jiva is passing through the cycle of karma-
vidya. Nevertheless, a stage arises in this long march when good
karma becomes ripe to provide an opportunity for the individual an
escape from bondage. As a result of the meritorious deed performed
in earlier births , the individual comes into contact with a man of
spiritual wisdom. Through their influence, he earns further merit
by doing good deeds and thereby becomes the object of grace of
ISvara. As a result of this he becomes an aspirant for mokña
(mumukñu) and thereafter he undertakes Brahmopasana or the
meditation on Brahman which is the means to mokña. The upasana
helps to get rid of the past karma as well as the karma of the future.
Once the jiva becomes free from karma, it achieves mokña.
It is interesting to note how the jiva becomes a mumukñu, an aspirant
for mokña. In the state of dissolution (pralaya) jiva is almost like a
non-intelligent material entity. At the time of creation, jiva escapes
from this condition and comes back to life being endowed with a
physical body and consciousness through the compassion of ISvara.
Even as a living individual, the jiva has to pass through various
states of waking, dream, dreamless sleep, death or half-death in the
form of swoon.
All these states involve some amount of suffering that the jiva has to
suffer during its lifetime. What is considered to be happiness at this
stage is a misnomer. According to men of philosophical wisdom,
 happiness is comparable to the firefly. It is highly transitory in
character. If one realises through philosophic wisdom that life is
nothing but suffering (duùkha) and the so-called happiness is rooted
only in suffering (duùkha- müla) one naturally looks forward to to
the permanent and real happiness. Only such individuals who
develop a detachment towards worldy pleasures of evanescent
character become the aspirant of mokña.
According to ViSiñTadvaita, jivas are classified as baddhas, those who
are in bondage; muktas, those who are released from bondage, and
nityas, those who are eternally free, that is, those who never had
bondage.
All jivas are eligible for mokña but, however, only an individual who
is desirous of attaining mokña has to endeavour for it by adopting
the prescribed sadhana and he will no doubt achieve it with God's
grace. God in order to shower this grace looks forward to a sincere
desire for release on the part of an individual.

b) Bhakti as the Means to Mokña

Bhakti as a means or upaya to mokña is defined as unceasing

meditation done with love on the Supreme Being. It is thus regarded
as knowledge (a mental activity) in the form of love of God. It is
generated by scrupulous observance of religious duties as laid down
by scripture in accordance with one's varsa and aSrama, along with
spiritual knowledge. The performance of one's duties and rituals
(karma) will have to be observed, as explained in the Gita, purely as
a divine service for the pleasure of God (bhagavat-priti) and not in
any expectation of any rewards thereof. This in brief is the
ViSiñTadvaita view of sadhana for mokña.
The justification for introducing the concept of Bhakti is provided on
the authority of a specific passage in the Musò Up. and three
relevant verses in the Bhagavad Gita. The Upanidadic text says
(Musò Up. 3.2.3) nayam atma pravacanena labhyo, na medhaya na
bahuna Srutena / yam evaiña vånute tena labhyaù, atma vivånute
tanüm svam. “This self (Brahman) cannot be attained by the study
of the Vedas, nor by meditation nor through much hearing. He is to
be attained only by one who the self chooses. To such a person, the
self reveals the nature.”
 This verse and other in the Gita (11.53-54) seem to contradict the
statement in the Båhad-aranyaka Up (6.5.6): atma va are
drañTavyaù Srotavyo mantavyo nididhyasitavyaù, which says that
the process of self realization implies Sravana (hearing) manana
(reflection) and nididhyasana (contemplation). The explanation is
that what is negated in that particular verse in Musò.Up is that mere
Sravana, etc devoid of intense bhakti is of no use for God
realzation.
Therefore it is only the unconditional deep-rooted love for God that
serves as a means to know God in His true form, to have this vision
and eventually to attain Him. This means that divine vision is
possible only through God's grace and in order to earn it one has to
be deeply devoted to God.
Thus the terms such as jnana, upasana, dhyana, dhruvanuñmåti, etc
which are used in the Upaniñads as means of mokña are to be
understood to mean the same thing. Otherwise it would amount to
the admission of different means of mokña. If the means be
different, the goal to be achieved would also be different. Actually,
the goal is the same for all, and hence the means should all be the
same. Therefore, it is concluded that all these terms, though they
appear to have different meanings, should have the meaning of the
specific term bhakti, according to the MimaàSa principle of
interpretation.
If jnana alone is considered as the sole means to mokña, as the
impersonalists contend, all the upaniñadic texts referring to
upasana become meaningless. Bhakti as a upaya for mokña is
described in the Gita as bhakti-yoga. It is a life-long rigorous
discipline involving the acquisition of spiritual knowledge,
development of certain ethical virtues and observance of religious
duties as laid down by sacred texts.
According to ViSiñTadvaita, bhakti-yoga is to be preceded by the
practice of karma-yoga and jnana-yoga referred to in the Bhagavad
Gita. Karma-yoga emphasises the disinterested performance of
action (karma), such as sacrifice (yajna), charity (dana) and
austerity (tapas) as divine service without any expectation of
rewards thereof. Jnana-yoga signifies constant meditation upon
atma, the individual self with control of the mind and senses. The
two are inter-related and the aim of both is self realization
(atmavalokana). Both these subserve bhakti, and as such they are
 the subsidiary means to bhakti-yoga, which is the direct means to
God realization.
The four main requirements or adhikara for bhakti-yoga are:
a) a clear philosophic knowledge of the realms of karma, jnana and
bhakti
b) the will to rigorously undergo the discipline in due order
c) the Sastric qualification of birth as an essential aid to bhakti, and
d) sattvic patience to endure the prarabdha-karma till it is
exhausted or expiated.
According to ViSiñTadvaita, although bhakti is a desirable means to
mukti, it is not easily practiced in this age of Kali Yuga owing to its
ardousness. But Sastra, in its infinite mercy to the erring humanity,
guarantees God to all Jivas irrespective to their status and situation
in life. It has provided for the weak and infirm an alternate path to
mukti known as prapatti, or the absolute self-surrender to God.
The only pre requisite for prapatti is the change of heart or contrition
on the part of the mumukñu and his absolute confidence in the
saving grace of God. It is the essence of the religion of prapatti that
the Lord of grace seeks the prapanna and draws him to himself. The
act has a summary effect, as it destroys even prarabdha-karma.
The supreme merit of prapatti lies in the universality of its appeal to
all casts and classes, the guarantee of salvation to all jivas who
cannot follow the arduous path of bhakti.

c) The Nature of Mukti

In the state of mokña, jiva becomes totally free from the shackles of
karma and as such its jnana manifests itself in its fullness. Jiva
becomes omniscient and is thus capable of comprehending
Brahman in all its splendour. Once this state is reached by jiva there
is never a return to the stage of bondage.
On the strength of scriptural texts, it is admitted that jiva attains a
status in mokña almost equal to Brahman. Thus, the Sruti says that
the jiva in the state of mukti enjoys supreme equality (parama-
samya) with the Lord.
The impersonalists take the text (Musò. Up. 3.2.9) brahma veda
brahmaiva bhavati, which literally means that “the knower of
 Brahman becomes Brahman”, and which implies the identity
(tadatmya) of the individual self and the Brahman.
But the ViSiñTadvaita points out that this text does not so much refer
to identity as to equality (sadharmya), that means that the individual
self attains the status of Brahman rather than that it becomes one
with Brahman. The self becomes almost equal to Brahman in every
respect except in the matter of the creation. sustenance and
dissolution of the universe which belong exclusively to the Lord.
It is admitted that the individual soul in the state of mokña could
assume a body out of its free will (sankalpa) for the purpose of
enjoying bliss or for movement. Such a body assumed by the jiva is
not a karmic body and as such no bondage is caused to it. The jiva
could also remain without a body if he so desires.

D POST-RAMANUJA PERIOD

For nearly two centuries after the advent of Sri Ramanuja, there was
no significant contribution to the ViSiñTadvaita system by way of
major philosophic works. The acaryas who succeeded Ramanuja,
though some of them were eminent Vedantists such as Parasara
BhaTTa, Viñsucitta, Vatsya Varada, SudarSana Süri and Atreya
Ramanuja confined their attention primarily to the dissemination of
the philosophy of Ramanuja. Some of the acaryas such as Pillan,
Nanjiyar, Periavaccan Pillai, etc who were attracted by the
devotional hymns of the Alvars in Tamil were preocupied with
writing elaborate commentaries on them, mainly Nanmaÿvar's
Tiruvaymoli.
It was at this time that the schism in Sri-vaiñsavism became marked
and gave rise to the schools of Tenkalai and Vaòakalai. The first
formulator of the Tenkalai school was Pillai Lokacarya and the head
of the Vaòakalai was the famous Vedanta DeSika, regarded as the
most prominent sucessor of Sri Ramanujacarya. Till now the
differences between these two schools persist and they even use
different tilaks. However, philosophically speaking, there is no
fundamental differences, but it refers basically to matters of opinion.
In finding out the heart of Vaiñsavism, the works of the Tenkalai
school which are mostly in Tamil language are complementary to
those of the Vaòakalai, and Vedanta DeSika is aclaimed by both the
schools in their Vedantic aspect as the defender of Vaiñsavism
regarded as ViSiñTadvaita-darSana.
I. Pillai Lokacarya (1264-1327)

He was the older contemporary of Vedanta DeSika and is generally

regarded as the first proponent of the Tenkalai school. His spiritual
master is traced to Ramanuja hierarchically through Periyavaccan
Pillai, Nampillai, Nanjiyar, Parasara BhaTTa and Sri Ramanuja.
When the muslims sacked Sri Rangam and slaughted the Vaiñsavas
and commited sacrilege in the temple, he took a leading part in
removing the deity to a place of safety. He composed the eighteen
Rahasyas or sacred manuals of Tenkalaism, mostly in Masipravala
or sanskritized Tamil.
Pillai Lokacarya was suceeded by Manavala Mahamunigal, who is
revered by the Tenkalais as their greatest acarya. The chief
contribution of Tenkalaism to the cause of Sri-vaiñsavism consists
in its democratic dissemination to all people, of the truths of the
darSana confined till then to the higher castes.

II. Vedanta DeSika (1268-1369)

He was born at Tuppil in Kanci and got the name Venkatanatha. His
father was Ananta Süri and his mother Totaramba, sister of Atreya
Ramanuja. He studied with his uncle Atreya Ramanuja, and it is
said that he accompanied him to Vatsya Varadacarya's place, when
he was five years old. The story goes that even at such an early age
he showed so much precocity that it was predicted by Vatsya
Varada that he would become a great pillar of strength for the
ViSiñTadvaita school.
Vedanta DeSika was an unrivalled example of jnana and vairagya. It
is said that he used to live by uncha-våtti, receiving alms in the
streets, and spent all his life in writing philosophical and religious
works. While he lived in Kanci and Sri Rangam, he had to work in
the midst of various rival sects, and Pillai Lokacarya, who was
senior to him in age and was the supporter of the Tenkalai school,
against which Vedanta DeSika fought, wrote a verse in praise of
him. Though the leaders of these two schools were actuated by a
spirit of sympathty with one another, their followers made much of
the differences in their views and constantly quaralled with one
 another, and it is a well known fact that these sectarian quarrells
exist even today. During the general massacare at the temple of Sri
Rangam, Vedanta DeSika hid himself amongst the dead bodies and
fled ultimately to Mysore.
It is important to note that Vedanta DeSika had to accomplish two
major tasks - the first was refutation of the Mayavadi philosophy
which undermined the fundamental tenants of ViSiñTadvaita, and
the second and greater task was to present a constructive exposition
of the fundemental doctrines of ViSiñTadvaita. The first task was
fulfilled by writing an independent polemical work entitled
Satadüñani. As the title suggests, one hundred philosophical issues
were addressesd for systematic criticism by adopting the dialetical
method. Vedanta DeSika was a prolific writer and he wrote more
than a hundred works not only in the realm of philosophy and
religion but also in the field of poetry and drama. His chief works,
besides Satadüñani, are Tattva-mukta-kalapa, Nyaya-pariSuddhi,
Nyaya-siddhanjana, Sarvartha-siddhi, Tattra-Tika (a commentary
on Sri-bhañya) and many others.
III. Differences between Tenkalai and Vaòakalai Schools.

The split between these two schools widened in course of time and
the patrams or laudatory verses recited in the temple worship today
in praise of leading acaryas are a signal for sectarian strife, though
there is no actually intrinsic cause for such dissention.
Some divergent points are:
a) Tenkalai school emphasizes the value of the Tamil Prabandha
over all Sanskrit scriptures and regards the Aÿvars as in higher
levels in terms of religious authority. The Vedakalai gives
emphasis to Sanskrit literature and gives equal value to the åñis
and Aÿvars.
b) According to Vaòakalai school, Sri Lakñmi Devi possesses the
same spiritual status as Sriman Narayasa. They are One, although
seperated. Yet the Tenkalai school stresses the logic of
monotheism that only Narayasa is the Supreme. Sri Lakñmi
would be a special category of jiva above all else.
c) While the Vaòakalai school afirms that bhakti-yoga and prapatti-
yoga as sadhyopaya, or the means to mokña which has to be
affected by the aspirant, the Tenkalai school interprets prapatti
not as a yoga or human endeavour, but a mere faith in the grace
of God. The Vedakalai says that the Tenkalai denial of human
initiative as requisite condition of redemption leads to the
predication of arbitrariness and favouritism in the divine will.
d) The Tenkalai view is based on nirhetuka-kaTakña, or grace not
arising from any cause, and its position is compared to the
marjara-nyaya analogy -'the cat carrying the kitten in its mouth'.
Yet the Vaòakalai view is based on sahetuka-kaTakña, or grace
arising from a cause, and its position is compared to the
markaTa-nyaya analogy -'the young monkey clinging to the
mother for protection'.
PART II BRAHMA SAMPRADAYA

A INTRODUCTION

I. Need for a New DarSana

(Criticism of the ViSiñTadvaita Vedanta in the version of the

followers of
Sri Madhvacarya)

In spite of Ramanujacarya having written lengthly commentaries on

Vedanta-sütra and Bhagavad Gita, and other important books like
Vedartha-Sangraha, still there was much that had been left undone
or insufficiently done by him. Definitely the Advaita system of
philosophy had not been disloged from its pedestal on the
Upaniñads. A passing notice of a few passages from the principal
Upaniñads, such as was attempted by Ramanuja in his writings, was
not sufficient to inspire confidence.

It seemed the ViSiñTadvaita had, to some extent, played into the

hands of Monists in respect of some of its theological and
metaphysical views. Not caring for the entire body of pre-
Upaniñadic literatures and perpetuating the distinction between the
karma and jnana-kasòas, the ViSiñTadvaita system was unwittingly
too indiferent to the Vedas and disproportionately exalted the
Upaniñads over the Mantras.

The label and ideology of “ViSiñTadvaita” were alike distasteful

and compromising to genuine theism. The magesty, transcendence
and personal homogeneity of Godhead were on the brink of
extinction on such a view. Say what one may, no genuine theist
can, for a moment, consent to tie down his Deity (as does the
ViSiñTadvaita) to an existence perpetually “qualified” by two
attributes (viSeñas) one of which is sentient (cit) and the other
insentient (acit)! The Infinite cannot be a mere cross. The eternal,
irrevocable apposition of the dual attributes of cit and acit with the
Deity must perforce, mars its self completeness. The Jiva and jaòa,
which according to Ramanuja’s own showing are essentially and
eternally distinct from Brahman, cannot be treated as its “attributes”
in the same sense in which, for instance, “satyam”, “jnanam”,
“anantam” and “ananda” are treated by the Upaniñads as attributes
of Brahman. The ViSiñTadvaitic conception of the relation
between Brahman and its so-called attributes of cit and acit was,
thus open to serious logical objections.

The lable of “ViSiñTadvaita” similarly indicates a weakness to try

to press Theism into a monistic mould. A “viSiñTaikya” of One
Substance and two attributes all externally related, is no “aikya” at
all, except in a very loose and remote sense.

In spite of their undoubted ardour for the cause of Vaiñsavism

neither Ramanuja nor his predecessors had given it a firm textual
footing in the Vedas, Upaniñads and Sütras. There originally were
a few presumably Vaiñsava commentaries on the Vedanta-sütra
prior to Ramanujacarya. But since for some centuries before and
after Sankaracarya attention had been totally engrossed on higher
metaphysical issues of Monism versus Dualism, and latterly, with
purely dialectical questions, the theological problems of the relative
superiority of the Gods of the Vedantic pantheon and their status, or
even the theological identity of Brahman had no attraction for any
commentator. But when the great Bhagavata religion had come into
philosophical proeminance, in the 10th and 11th centuries, largely
through the efforts of the Tamil Vaiñsava saints (Aÿvars), side by
side with the speculative systems like those of Sankaracarya, it was
time to find a place for the highest God of the the Bhagavata cult,
namely Viñsu-Narayasa or Vasudeva. Sri Ramanuja himself had, in
his works, sounded a sufficiently ‘sectarian’ note and upheld Sri
Viñsu-Narayasa as the Para-Brahman of the Vedanta. Still, it could
not be said that he had suceeded in securing for his God that
paramount position (for which he had fought and suffered
persecution in his own region), in the sacred literature as a whole,
inclusive of the Upaniñads and Vedanta-sütra. As a matter of fact,
he had never at all looked at the Åg Veda, the Aranyakas and the
Upaniñads from that point of view and with that object. Although
Ramanujacarya had explained about the personal God in his
writings, it may be argued that his commentary on the Brahma-
sütras is not sufficiently “sectarian”. As a Mayavadi writer
commented: “The only sectarian feature of the Ramanujacarya’s
commentary is that he identifies Brahman with Viñsu, but this in no
way affects the interpretations put on the Sütras and the Upaniñads.
Narayasa, in fact, is but another name of Brahman.” But the time
had come for a more positive, passionate and “sectarian” advocacy
of the place of Lord Viñsu in Hindu religion and philosophy.

For some inscrutable reason, Ramanujacarya showed indifference to

the great gospel of Vaiñsavism, the Srimad-Bhagavatam. And so
had his predecessor Yamunacarya. This neglect, quite naturally,
came, in Advaitic circles, to be interpreted as a tacit admission, on
the part of the Vaiñsava realists, of the “unquestionable monistic
tenor of that Purasa.” We learn from Jiva Gosvami’s Sandharbhas
that there was at least two such early commentaries on Srimad
Bhagavatam - one by Pusyaranya and the other by the celebrated
impersonalist dialectician Citsukha. As a result of the labours of
these two eminent commentators, Vaiñsava Realism must have lost
ground and much of its prestige and stood in imminent danger of
losing its mainstay in the most popular Vaiñsava scripture, unless
something was urgently done to rehabilitate it.

Parallel to all this and during all these centuries, Saivism had been
growing into a power. From as early as the days of the Purasas, the
cult of Siva had been the main rival of Vaiñsavism. The period
between the 6th and 12th centuries was the heydey of Saivism in the
South and was distinguished for its mighty literary activity of the
Tamil Saiva saints (Nayanmars). So great was the influence and
ascendency of Saivism in the South that Sri Ramanuja had actually
to flee Sri Rangam and find more congenial haunts for his
Vaiñsavism in distant Melkote in South Karnataka.

The combined effects of all these forces must have driven Vaiñsava
Theism completely to bay. It could not have held out much longer
unless some one came forward to rehabilitate its fortune. And such
a one was soon to appear on the scene as the champion of Vedantic
Theism and Vaiñsava Realism in the person of Sri Madhvacarya.
B SRI MADHVACARYA (1238-1317)

I) His Life

Sri Madhva was born possibly in 1238 and lived 79 years (1317)
His parents were Narayasa BhaTTa and Vedavati, brahmasas of
humble status, in the village of Pajaka, eight miles SE of the town
of Udupi. His original name was Vasudeva.
At seven he had his Upayana and went through a course of Vedic
and Sastra studies. Probably at the age of sixteen he took sannyasi
from Acyutaprekña and got the name Pürsaprajna.
Some time after initiation was spent in the study of Vedantic
classics beginning with the Istasiddhi of Vimukatman. However
frequent arguments between master and disciple terminated the
studies before long.
Pürsaprajna was then made head of the maTh of Acyutaprekña,
under the name of Anandatirtha.
The name Madhva was assumed by him for certain esoteric reasons
connected with his claim to be an avatara of Vayu.
He possessed an uncommon physique and extraordinary intellectual
power.
Sri Madhva spent some time in Udupi teaching the other disciples
of Acyutaprekña. These teachings and constant philosophical
disputations developed his dialectic abilities and made him an adept
in polemics that he shows himself to be in his works.
Encouraged by these successes, he made up his mind to go on a
South Indian tour to find a wider field for the propagation of his
new ideas - Trivandrum, Kanya Kumari, Sri Rangam, RameSvaram,
etc. This tour took two or three years.
Back to Udupi, Sri Madhva was resolved to establish a new
sidhanta, and he began his career as an author. His first literary
work was the Gita-bhañya.
Then he started his first North Indian tour. At Badrinath,
Madhvacarya left by himself for MahabadarikaSrama, the abode of
Vyasadeva, in the upper regions of the Himalayas.
He returned after some months and inspired by Vyasadeva he wrote
his Brahmasütra-bhañya, which was transcribed to his dictation by
his disciple Satyatirtha.
The returning trip to Udupi was through Bihar and Bengal, and to
the banks of the Godavari, where Madhvacarya had a debate with a
veteran scholar Sobhana BhaTTa, who was defeated and became his
important disciple under the name of Padmanabha Tirtha. Another
important conversion during this tour was of Narahari Tirtha. The
first North Indian tour was fruitful and caused considerable
impression on the people.
Till then Madhva's criticism of the Advaita and other prevailing
schools had been merely destructive. He had not offered a new
bhañya in place of those he had so ruthlessly criticized. But with
the publication of his commentaries on Gita and the Brahma-sütras
no one could say he had no alternative system to offer in place of
those he critisized.
His first achievment after his return to Udupi was the conversion of
his very guru Acyutaprekña, completely, to the new sidhanta. He
was defeated not without a fierce resistance. Madhvacarya now had
got many converts and adherents.
In that time, he installed the beautiful deity of Lord Kåñsa in his
MaTh. He introduced some changes in the ceremonial codes and
the rigorous fasting on EkadaSi days.
After that, Madhvacarya started on his second tour of North India
and returning after visiting Delhi, Kurukñetra, Benares and Goa.
The subsequent tours were mostly within the Karnataka state.
Many literary works had, in the meanwhile, been written by him
such as the commentaries of the Ten Upaniñads, Srimad
Bhagavatam and Mahabharata.
The increasing popularity of the new faith naturally caused no small
apprehension to the followers of the established faith - Advaita.
Madhvacarya's only business was to dispel the mist of Mayavadi
philosophy, to which he was a veritable enemy all through his life.
His library which contained a very valuable and rare collection of
books was devastated in a raid done by mayavadis.
This incident brought Madhvacarya into touch with Jayasiàha, the
ruler of Kumbha, and in this opportunity the great court pasòita
Trivikrama Pasòitacarya was converted. Trivikrama's conversion
was a turning point in the history of the faith. He wrote a
commentary on Madhva's Brahmasütra-bhañya, called Tattva-
 pradipa and his son Narayasa Pasòitacarya was the author of the
Madhva's biography "Madhva-vijaya".
By this time, Madhva's fame spread far and wide, and many more
joined to him.
Then he composed his masterpiece Anuvyakyana based on the
Vedanta-sütra.
The last years of Madhvacarya seem to have been spent in teaching
and worship.
He designated his younger brother Viñsu and seven other disciples to
become the founders of the AñTa-MaThas of Udupi. Three works
were composed about this time: Nyaya-vivarasa, Karma-nirsaya
and Kåñsamåta-maharsarva.
Charging his disciples with his last message from his favorite
Upaniñad, Aitareya “not sit still but go forth and preach” , Sri
Madhvacarya left this world in 1318.

II. Sri Madhvacarya’s Literary Works

Sri Madhvacarya wrote thirty seven works, collectively called Sarva-

müla. His writings are characterized by an extreme brevity of
expression, and a rugged simplicity and directness, without any
sophistication and literary ornament. The language of some of them
are so terse and elliptical that their meaning could not be fully
grasped without a good commentary. They may be classified under
four heads:

a) Commentaries on the PrañThana-traya:

1) Gita-bhañya, 2) Gita-tatparya, 3) Brahma-sütra-bhañya, 4)
Anubhañya, 5) Asu-vyakhyana, 6) Nyaya-vivarasa, 7-16) ten
Upaniñads bhañya, 17) Åg-veda-bhañya

b) Ten short monographs DaSa-prakarasa, some elucidating the

basic principles of his system, its logic, ontology, epistemology,
etc:
8) Pramasa-lakñasa, 19) Katha-lakñasa, 20) Upadhi-khasòana,
21) Mayavada-khasòana, 22) Prapanca-mithyatvanumana-
khasòana, 23) Tattva-sankhyana, 24) Tattva-viveka, 25)
Tattvoddyota, 26) Viñsu-tattva-nirsaya and 27) Karma-nirsaya.
c) Commentaries on Småti-prañThana:
28) Bhagavata-tatparya and 29) Mahabharata-tatparya-
nirsaya.

d) Poems, stotras:
30) Yamaka-bharata, 31) Narasiàha-nakha-stuti, 32) DvadaSa-
stotra, and some
works on worship: 34) Tantra-sara-sangraha, 35) Sadacara-
småti, 36) Yati-prasava-kalpa, 37) Kåñsa-jayanti-nirsaya.
C DVAITA PHILOSOPHY OF SRI
MADHVACARYA

The cardinal doctrines of Sri Madhvacarya’ Dvaita Vedanta have

been summed up as nine in a verse attributed to Vyasatirtha (1478-
1539):
1) hariù parataraù In all respects Lord Viñsu alone is supreme and
the highest; 2) satyaà jagat This entire universe is truly and
ultimately real; 3) tattvato bhedaù The five-fold difference is
fundamental; 4) jiva-gasaù harer anucaraù The manifold embodied
souls are all dependent on Lord Viñsu; 5) (jiva-gasaù) nica-ucca-
bhavaà gataù The embodied souls are inherently graded as higher
and lower (mainly three-fold); 6) muktir naija-sukhanubhütiù
Liberation is enjoing the bliss befitting to one’s original form; 7)
amala bhaktiS ca tat-sadhanam The means to secure Liberation is
pure devotion to Lord Viñsu; 8) akñadi tritayaà pramasam The
means of valid knowledge are only three, viz., perception, inference
and verbal testimony; 9) akhilam nayaika vedyo hariù Lord Viñsu
alone is made known by the entire mass of scriptures.

I. Ontology

1) Madhva's Ontological Theory

a) Madhva's ontology is characterized by two principal ideas of being -

reality and independence. Reality is related to this material world
and souls; while independence is characteristic of the Lord alone.

b) Sankara says that the real must necesSarily be eternal. On the other
hand, the Buddhists affirm that it has to be necesSarily momentary
(kñanika). The Madhva conception of Reality is in between these
two concepts. Existence, then is a test of reality. For him, satyam
may be the existence at some place and time, and not necesSarily
 for all time and throughout space. Actual existence at some time
and place is sufficient to distinguish the real from the unreal. The
second test of reality is “practical efficiency”.

c) Unlike the classical definition of Dualism by Sankhya phiosophy “a

theory which admits two independent and mutually irreducible
substances”, the Dualism of Madhva, while admitting two mutually
irreducible principles as constituting Reality as a whole, regards
only one of them, viz. God, as the One and only independent
principle (svatantra) and the other , viz. all finite reality comprising
the prakåti, puruñas, kala, karma, svabhava, etc, as dependent
(paratantra). This concept of two orders of reality (tattvas), viz.
svatantra and paratantra, is the key note of Madhva's philosophy.

2) Madhva's Ontological Scheme

a) Tattva or reality is of two categories:

a1) Svatantra or independent (Lord Viñsu alone)
a2) Paratantra or dependent

b) Paratantra is of two kinds:

b1) Bhava or existent
b2) Abhava or non-existent:
(The three types of abhava are: prag-abhava or anterior,
pradhvaàSabhava or posterior, and sadabhava or absolute
negation).

c) Bhava or existent entities are of two broad types:

c1) Cetana or conscious
c2) Acetana or not conscious

d) Acetana or unconscious entities are three fold:

d1) Nitya or eternal ( the Vedas alone)
d2) Nityanitya or partly eternal and partly non-eternal
(the Purasas, prakåti, kala)
d3) Anitya or non-eternal entities, which is divided into:
i) SaàsåñTa or created (The world and everything else).
ii)AsaàsåñTa or uncreated
 (maha-tattva, ahankara, buddhi, manas, ten indriyas,
the tanmatras and the panca-bhütas).

e) Cetana or conscious entities can be:

e1) Duùkha-spåñTa or those associated with sorrows
e2) DuùkhaspåñTa or those who are not so (Lakñmi Devi)

f) The Duùkha-spåñTas are divided in:

f1) Vimuktas or released - (devas, åñis, pitås, naras)
f2) Duùkha-saàstha or those abiding with sorrows, which are of
two types:
i) Mukti-y
ii) Mukti-a

g) The Mukty-ayogyas can be:

g1) Nitya-saàSarin or ever-transmigrating
g2) Tamoyogya or damnable:
(martyadhamas, the worst men; daityas, the demons; rakñasas
and piSacas).
Each one of these tamoyogyas can be:
i) Praptandhatamas or those who are already damnned in
hell.
ii) Såtisaàstha or those who are in saàsara but are
doomed to hell.

3) The Concept Of ViSeñas

a) A special feature of Madhva’s philosophy is the category of viSeña,

which he introduces to explain the appearance of bheda, where there
is none. The category distinguishes a quality from a substance and
apart 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 viSeña. We do not perceive any difference
between the cloth and its whiteness, but we perceive the viSeña
(particulariry) of the cloth. In the case of God, the principle of
viSeña is employed to reconcile his unity with the plurality of his
qualities and powers, and the plurality of His divine body , divine
dress, divine abode, and the like.
b) The concept of viSeña is used to accomodate the two conflicting
types of texts in the Upaniñads - those which speak of Brahman as
nirviSeña and the saviSeña texts - by which Madhvacarya tries to
reconcile the concept of monism with that of plurality.

c) The concept of viSeña seems to be akin to the concept of acintya-

bhedabheda. This view gains further support from the fact that
Baladeva Vidyabhüñana in his Govinda-bhañya reverts to Madhva's
doctrine of viSeña in reconciling monism and pluralism, and
characterizes it as being identical with the concept of acintya. He
says that Brahman is spoken of as possessing the qualities of sat, cit
and ananda, although these qualities constitute the essence of
Brahman. This is due to the supralogical functions of viSeña,
because viSeña does not imply that Brahman is, from another point
of view, identical with its qualities, and from another point of view,
different. Nevertheless, we cannot take the concept of Madhvacarya
as totally identical to Sri Caitanya’s because “Madhvacarya’s
concept of acintya is not so acintya, or inconceivable, as the acintya
of Sri Caitanya. Madhva’s ‘acintya’ is related to viSeña, which
reconciles the appearance of difference and identity, while Sri
Caitanya’s acintya reconciles real difference with real identity.”1
1
(O.B.L. Kapoor)

4) Madhva's Doctrine of "Difference"

a) According to Madhvacarya, the uniqueness of a particular be it a

person or thing, is to be understood in terms of difference from all
else. Difference is not merely a component part of a reality, related
from outside, but constitutes the very essence (dharmi-svarüpa) of
an object.

b) There are three types of differences:

b1) sajatiya or difference of things of same category
b2) vijatiya or difference of things of different categories.
b3) svagata or internal distinctions within an organic whole (this
type is not
admitted by Madhva in its absolute sense).
c) Sri Madhvacarya insists on five absolute and eternal distinctions
between Brahman (ISvara), jiva and jaòa, or the inanimate world. He
quotes from Parama-Sruti:

jiveSvara-bhida caiva jaòeSvara-bhida tatha

jiva-bhedo mithaS caiva jaòa-jiva-bhida tatha

mithaS ca jaòa-bhedo ’yaà prapanco bheda-pancakaù

so ’yaà satyo hy anadiS ca sadiS cen naSamapnuyat

na ca naSaà prayatyeña na casau bhranti kalpitaù

kalpitaS cen nivartate na casau vinivartate

daitaà na vidyata iti tasmad ajnaninaà matam

mataà hi jnaninam etan mitaà trataà ca viñsuna

yasmat satyam iti proktaà paramo harir eva tu

‘The universe consists of five-fold differences): Difference between 1)

God and sentient soul; 2) God and the insentient matter; 3) one soul
and another; 4) soul and matter; and 5) between one material object
and another. This difference is real and beginningless. If it had the
origin it would have perished. But it does not perish, not is it imagined
through illusion. If it had been imagined it would have terminated. but
it does not terminate. Therefore, the contention that there is no duality
or difference is the opinion of the ignorant. the enlightened hold that it
is known and protected by Viñsu and that,

as such, it is asserted to be real. But Viñsu alone is Supreme.’

II. Epistemology

(From Madhva’s Viñsu-tattva-vinirsaya)

1) The Proofs about God

The existence of God cannot be proved by any inference; for

inference of equal force can be adduced against the existence of
God. If it is urged that the world, being an effect, must have a
creator or maker just as a jug has a potter for its maker, then it may
also be urged on the contary that the world is without any maker,
like the self; if it is urged that the self is not an effect and that
therefore the counter argument does not stand, then it may also be
urged that all makers have bodies, and since God has no body, God
cannot be the creator.
Thus the existence of God can only be proved on the testimony of
the scriptures, and they hold that God is different from the
individual selves. If any scriptural text seem to indicate the identity
of God and self or of God and the world, this will be contradicted
by perceptual experience and inference, and consequently the
monistic interpretations of these texts would be invalid.
Now the scriptures cannot suggest anything which is directly
contradicted by experience; for, if experience be invalid, then the
experience of the validity of the scriptures will also become
invalid.The teaching of the scriptures gains additional strength by its
consonance with what is perceived by other pramasas; and since all
the pramasas point to the reality of diversity, the monistic
interpretation of scriptural texts cannot be accepted as true. When
any particular experience is contradicted by a number of other
pramasas, that experience is thereby rendered invalid.

2) Concept of Upajivaka and Upajiya

There are two classes of qualitative proofs, viz, that which is

relative or dependent (upajivaka) and that which is independent
(upajivya); of these the latter must be regarded as stronger.
 Perception and inference are independent sources of evidence, and
may therefore be regarded as upajivya, while the scriptural texts are
dependent on perception and inference, and are therefore regarded
as upajivaka. Valid perception precedes inference and is superior to
it, for the inference has to depend on perception; thus if there is a
flat contradiction between the scriptural texts and what is
universally perceived by all, the scriptural texts have to be so
explained that there may not be any such contradicton. By its own
nature as a support of all evidence, perception or direct experience,
being the upajivya, has a stronger claim of validity. Of the two
classes of texts, viz, those which are monistic and those which are
dualistic, the latter is suppoted by perceptual evidence. So the
superiority of the dualistic texts cannot be denied.

III. The World of Experience

1) Doctrine of Sakñi-Pramasa

a) Belief in the reality of the world and its values is, naturally, one of
the fundamental tenants of theism. The reality of the world can be
proved especially by pratyakña, direct experience, and by many
scriptural texts. Besides these pramasas, Madhvacarya resorts to a
special type of pratyakña called sakñi, the intuitive perception by
the self, based on our sakñin or the inner sense-organ of the
embodied self (svarüpendriya).
b) The sakñi is the ultimate criterion of all knowledge and its
validation. This sakñi is competent enough to test and judge the data
of our experience, gathered from sense-perception, inference and
Sastras. Even the statements of the Sastras which support
impersonalistic views of the unreality of this world or the identity of
jiva and Brahman, have to be brought before the bar of sakñi before
they can be accepted without question. When texts like 'tat tvam
asi' and 'neha nanasti' appear to teach the identity of jiva and
Brahman and the unreality of the world, such teaching (or
interpretation of these texts) has to be unhesitantingly rejected as
invalid because it goes against the upajivya-pramasa (that pramasa
 which offers subsistence) which, in present case, is the tested sakñi-
anubhava of the difference between the individual self and
Brahman and of the reality of the world of experience.
c) Some quotations from Madhvacarya:
anubhüti virodhena ma na kacana Nothing is valid which goes
against one’s intuitive knowledge.
na ca anubhava virodhe agamasya pramasyam The scripture can
have no validity if it contradicts experience.

IV. Doctrine of Atman

1) Essence of Selfhood

a) (From Viñsu-tattva-vinirsaya):
Who is a jiva or the soul? And how is he known? To this question
the reply is: the soul is known as ‘I’. Whenever anyone utters the
word ‘I’ it should be understood that he is meaning thereby his jiva
or soul. Further, he is subject to happiness or misery. That is,
whenever one becomes happy or miserable, the concerned
happiness or misery is experienced by the soul. It is the soul who
enjoys the happiness and suffers the misery. Moreover, it is the soul
who is subjected to this saàsara-bandhana and it is the soul who
gets release from this bondage and enjoys the bliss of the mokña or
final liberation.

The jivas are the reflected counterparts (pratibimba-aàSa) of Viñsu.

The bodies of the jivas, eternally present in Vaikuntha are
transcendental (aprakåta). Hence, they are called unconditioned-
reflected counterparts (nir-upadhika-pratibimba-aàSa). The bodies
of the jivas of the material world are material; therefore, they are
called conditioned-reflected-counterparts (sa-upadhika-pratibimba-
aàSa).

A question then arises: “What functions like a mirror (upadhi) in the

bimba-pratibimba-vada?” Verily, without a mirror there cannot be
 any reflection. If the jiva is a reflection of Brahman there must be
something to act the role of the mirror. What is that upadhi?
Madhvacarya explains that the svarüpa or the inherent nature of the
jiva itself functions as the upadhi.

b) The state of the souls in mokña - They are not formless beings or
colorless points but atomic individuals with their own specific
forms and characteristics. They have spiritual bodies of their own
with appropriate organs, and have names and forms which are
beyond the knowledge of those still in bondage.
2) Metaphysical Dependence of Souls

a) In spite of their intrinsic nature of consciousness and bliss, the

souls, as finite beings, are in state of absoute dependence and
limitation at all times in bondage and release.
b) The beginningless involvement of the soul in this world Though
essentially uncreated, they are, nevertheless associated from eternity
with a series of material factors known as avarasas (concealment),
which are:
b1) linga-Sarira or a subtle body
b2) prarabdha-karma or karma which has begun to bear fruit.
b3) kama or desire which is the seed of activity.
b4) avidya or ignorance, which is real and destructible.
c) The source of bondage is also in the same way to be put down
ultimately to the will of God. There is no other explanation of the
beginningless association of ignorance obscuring the selves except
the mysterious will of Brahman.
d) It is the will of the Lord that the souls shall know Him and realize
their respective selfhood only by cleansing themselves of the
impurities of prakåti and the distractions of avidya, after a long and
ardous process of physical, intellectual and moral effort and
spiritual discipline. The seed must be planted in the earth before it
can sprout and develop into a fruit tree. The accessories at linga-
deha, prarabdha-karma, etc are just the material environment
provided by God to help the jivas to unfold themselves. This is
indeed the purpose of creation.
e) There is, thus no problem at all of the first 'fall of man', in Madhva's
philosophy. The question is only of the 'ascent of man' by degrees,
after he has qualified himself through sincere effort. Not having
possessed the freedom and purity of the Supreme at any time of
their lives, or having been 'in any way shares in the divine nature',
the question does not arise for Madhva, of how the souls came to
lose these and transfer themselves to the rule of karma. Ramanuja
holds that neither reason nor Sastra can tell us how karma got the
souls into its power because the cosmic process is beginningless.

3) Madhva's Theory of Bondage

a) According to Madhvacarya, souls exist from eternity in the chaos of
a material environment under the supervision of God. At the
conclusion of each maha-pralaya, He brings them to the forefront
of creation. He has no purpose in doing so, save that of helping the
souls to exhaust through enjoyment (bhoga) the heavy load of
karmas and vasanas. Creation is, thus, and indespensible requisite
for the ripening of individual karma and the full development of
each soul.
b) Creation is beginningless in time, but in all the same subject to the
Lord's pleasure. He is the ultimate cause of their bondage not in the
sense that He threw them into it at certain point of their history, but
that its continuous association with them is, in every way, subject
to Him and its freedom will depend on His grace and co-operation.
The termination of this entanglement can only be achieved by God's
grace earned through sadhanas. Such is the essence of Madhva's
view of the reality and terminability of bondage.
c) It may, no doubt, appear to be a despotic thing for God to envelop
the souls in beginningless maya, but it is a necessary evil in the
scheme of the universe. The association with material nature is a
necessary step in the spiritual evolution of souls and is, therefore
permitted by God. It is a painful experience through which
everyone of them has to pass before attaining his or her full stature
whatever that might be. It is the desire of the Almighty that the
souls shall fulfil themselves only in this way and in no other. And
there is no questioning His will, as He is satya-sankalpa.
d) It is only true knowledge of the soul's relation to God that can
redeem it from this bondage. The true and final explanation of
bondage is, thus, the 'will of the Lord', and not merely karma,
ajnana, kala, gusas, etc. Madhva has gone beyond Ramanuja in
tracing the origin of bondage ultimately to Divine will.
e) Madhavcarya calls his theory of the origin of bondage svabhava-
ajnana-vada or the theory of the soul's ignorance of their own true
nature and of their dependence on the Supreme Brahman.

4) Theory of Svarüpa-Bheda

(Plurality and difference of nature among souls)

a) Madhva's doctrine of the souls 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, which comes out more clearly in
the the release state where the souls realize their true status. This
position is peculiar to Madhva and is not found in any other school
of Indian philosophy.

b) (From Madhva’s Mahabharata-tatparya-nirsaya):

There are broadly three groups of souls: gods, men and demons.
Among them gods and superior men are fit to get liberation. The
mediocre men are fit only to live in this world being victims to the
cycle of birth and death. The worst men go to hell; demons too go to
dark regions. Both liberation or reaching higher and brighter regions
as well as downfall or sinking into dark nether regions are
permanent. There is no return from those regions, whether brighter
and darker.
Human beings can be classified as superior or inferior by
considering their hari-bhakti or hari-dveña. The inferio possess
hari-dveña even though in a lesser degree than what is possessed by
demons. Therefore they are destined to reach dark regions. The
superior souls possess hari-bhakti even though in a lesser degree
than what is possessed by gods and therefore they are fit for mokña.
The mediocre possess both hari-bhakti and hari-dveña and therefore
they do not rise high nor they fall down. They remain for ever in
this amterial world.

c) Doctrine of jiva-traividhya or tripartite classification of souls in this

world:
1) muktiyogya (salvable)
2) nitya-saàSarin (ever-transmigrating)
3) tamoyogya (damnable)
The doctrine of jiva-traividhya intends to justify and reconcile the
presence of evil with divine perfection, in the only rational way in
which it could be done, - by fixing the responsibility for goodness
or evil upon the moral freedom born of diversity of nature of souls
who are themselves eternal and uncreated in time.

d) An intrinsic divergence of nature and faith into sattvika, rajasa and

tamasa which is rooted in the core of individual nature as stated in
the Bhagavad-gita (17.2-3), is the ultimate base of this theory,
according to Madhvacarya. What is thus ultimate traced to the
essential nature (svabhava) of the selves must indeed be unalterable.
Other verses from Bhagavad-gita supporting his theory are: BG
(14.18), BG (16.5,6,20).
V. Doctrine of Brahman

Jayathirtha, in his Nyaya-sudha, gives classical expression to the

metaphysical ideology of the Upaniñads, as conceived by
Madhvacarya:
“All texts of the Vedanta declare, indeed, the majesty of the
Supreme Brahman as a storehouse of numberless auspicious
attributes and free from all imperfections. Of these,
1) some represent It as endowed with such attributes as
omniscience, lordship of all, control of beings from within, beauty,
magnanimity and other excellences;
2) some describe It negatively as free from sin, devoid of grief,
having no material body, and so on;
3) yet others speak of It as being beyond the reach of mind and
words, in order to teach us the extreme difficulty of understanding
It;
4) many others depict It as the One without a second, so as to make it clear that man must s
5) still others proclaim It as the Self of all, so that it may be realized as conferring on all els
Thus do scriptures depict the Brahman in diverse ways and from
different standpoints all converging towards the one purpose of
expounding the transcendental and immanent magesty of God in
Himself, in the Atma, and in the world.”

VI. Sadhana-Vicara

1) Freedom and Free Will

a) The question of human freedom and divine control assumes great

importance in philosophy and ethics. Madhvacarya says that it is
man himself and not God who is responsible for the evil and
suffering in the world. This is the corollary of his theory of
svarüpa-bheda (intrinsic difference of nature among souls).
b) Madhvacarya maintains that the human soul is a real agent in all its
actions. If the soul is not the karta, the injunctions of the Sastras
 with reference to the obtainment of specific results and the moral
law will lose all significance.
c) The acceptance of real agency (kartåtva) to the soul does not,
however, make the jiva and absolutely independent agent.
d) The jiva pursues of his free will a course of action which is
determined mostly by his own deep-rooted nature, inclinations and
past karmas. But even this is possible because God has given him
the power to do things in conformity with his own innate goodness
or its opposites. He is not, therefore, a mere puppet in the hands of
God. The right to choose between right and wrong is his own, made
on his own responsibility and at his own risk (BG 18.63:
yathecchasi tatha kuru). This explains why some are Muktiyogyas,
some remain in bondage and others qualify for tamas.
e) Most Indian commentators would take shelter under the inexorable
law of karma to reconcile the presence of evil and inequalities in
this world with the goodness of God. But even a chain of
biginningless karma could not explain why all souls are not equally
good or bad, as all of them are equally eternal and their karmas too
were equally beginningless and they start simultateously. The
explanation given by Madhva is that karma itself is the result of the
distinctive nature of each soul (called haTha) which is intrinsic to it.
f) Questions like: "The jiva was not created out of a void at a
particular time. But he is none the less and expression of the nature
of God. How then does he happen to be so imperfect while his
archetype is also the type of perfection?" Madhvacarya says that it
is because the intrinsic diversity of human nature, anadi-svarüpa-
yogyata.

2) General Scheme of Sadhanas

a) The aim of methaphysical inquiring is the attainment of release

through Divine Grace. One has naturally to think of the means of
earning it. The Sastras describe them as leading to one another, in
the following order: 1) freedom from worldly attachment (vairagya)
2) devotion to God (bhakti) 3) study of the Sastras (Sravana) 4)
reflection (manana) 5) meditation ( nididhyasana), and 6) direct
realization (sakñat-kara).
b) Madhva emphazises the point that instruction and guidance of a
competent guru and his grace (prasada) are absolutely necessary for
Sravana and manana to bear fruit.
c) 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, qualifying for illumination to the
aspirant, the permission of the earlier guru shall have to be obtained
before securing instruction from the other one.
d) Bhakti, according to Madhvacarya, is the steady and continuous
flow of deep attachment to God, transcending the love of our own
selves, our friends and relations, cherished belongings, etc, and
fortified by the firm conviction of the transcending 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.
e) Taratamya or a 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
spiritual hierarchy is not a matter of courtesy. It is a must. The
devas occupy a special position in the government of God's universe
with special cosmic jurisdiction delegated to them. They are the
greatest devotees of the Lord, the highest order of jnana-yogis and
our direct superiors, protectors, guides and gurus. We cannot even
think of God without their grace. It is they who inspire our minds
along the 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.
f) From Madhva's Gita-tatparya - "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 prakåtic bondage. In the
released state also, the jivas remain under the Lord's control imbued
with unalloyed devotion to Him".
g) It is said that Madhvacarya was the first Vaiñsava philosopher who
has categorically held that the goddess Sri who holds the unique
position of being nitya-mukta and samana (having semi-parity with
 the Lord), remains the most ardent devotee of the Lord from
eternity. He also refers to the existence of ekanta-bhaktas, who
prefer to be bhaktas instead of sayuja-muktas.
h) Jayatirtha refers to three stages of bhakti in the ascending order:
1) pakva-bhakti or ripe devotion - the means to acquiring
knowledge of God.
Sravana and manana just pave the way for it.
2) paripakva-bhakti or riper devotion - the means of direct
vision of the Lord.
Dhyana is the means.
3) ati-paripakva-bhakti or mellowed devotion - the spiritual joy
of communion
with the Lord. Here the direct realization of the Lord
(aparokña-jnana) is
achieved and the bhakta wins the absolute grace (athyartha-
prasada)
i) The two major ingredients of bhakti, according to Madhva:
1) a profound awareness of the Lord's magesty (mahatmya-
jnana)
2) an inborn magnetic attraction to the Lord (sneha)
j) Conflict between jnana and bhakti as the ultimate means of mokña
(from Jayatirtha's Nyaya-Sudha):
“In the Sastras, wherever it is stated that jnana is the means of
mokña, it must be understood that bhakti is also conveyed by it
through secondary significatory power of the word. This is because
the intimate relationship which exists between them, insofar as
jnana is a costituent factor of bhakti which has been defined as a
blend of knowledge of the Lord’s majesty coupled with an
absorbing love (sneha) for Him.”
k) The steps of spiritual discipline taught by Yoga-Sastra - yama,
niyama, asana, prasayama, pratyahara and dharasa are to be
treated as accessories to dhyana, which is virtually the same as the
state of samadhi or introspection.
l) Madhvacarya distinguishes carefully between dhyana and
aparokña. The former is defined as a continuous flow of mediate
knowledge while the latter is a direct vision of the Supreme Being,
in Its "bimba" form. The form revealed in dhyana is, therefore,
regarded as just a mental picture, an image constructed by the
impressions of the mind, just a substitute and not the original form
of God. But the one visualized in aparokña is the actual revelation
 of God - the yogi or sadhaka is face to face with the object of his
meditation and intuits the Divine form, which is His archetype
(bimba). Such direct perception of God is attainable only when the
mind is specially attuned to the Supreme by full discipline of
Sravana, manana and dhyana, in absolute self surrendering
devotion to God. Ultimately, it is He that must choose to reveal
Himself, pleased by the hungering love of the soul.

VII. Doctrine of Mukti

a) Madhvacarya’s theory of ananda-taratmya (different levels of bliss)

in mokña is a logical conclusion from the hypothesis of svarüpa-
bheda (differences in nature) and taratamya (gradation) among the
souls. The main argument of this theory is that since mokña is only
the discovery of enjoyment of one’s own selfhood, in its pristine
purity and bliss, there is no possibility of exchanging one’s
experiences of bliss with another’s, or of its transference to another,
whether wholly or in part. Each souls rests fully satiated and
immersed in the enjoyment of its svarüpananda to saturation point,
so to say. All souls could not have put forth the same quality or
quantity of effort of the same intensity or duration. It thus stands to
reason that there must be a proportionate difference in the nature of
the reward reaped by them. This is one other ground of taratamya
(gradation) of ananda (bliss) in mokña. There are highly evolved
souls like Brahma and the other gods whose spiritual perfection
must surely be greater than that of us mortals. The evidence of
Sastras tell us of super-human sadhanas practiced by some of the
gods and the wide difference in their quality, duration, etc, which
are beyond human conception.

b) Madhvacarya accepts an ascending order of mukti: salokya,

samipya, sarüpya and sayujya, in which each suceeding stage
includes the joy of the preceding step. He says that as sayuja carries
with it an element of sarüpya also, it cannot be equated with aikyam
or monistic liberation.
D COMPARISON WITH OTHER SYSTEMS

I. Dvaita versus ViSiñTadvaita

1) Madhva is a rank dualist and does not believe in qualified

absolutism. According to Ramanuja differences have no separate
existence and belong to identity which they qualify. Identity,
therefore, is the last word. But for Madhva differences have
separate existences and constiture the unique nature of things. They
are not mere qualifications of identity.

2) Madhva rejects the relation of inseperability (apåthaksiddhi) and the

distinctions between substance (dravya) and non-substance
(adravya). He explains the relation of identity and difference by
means of unique particulars (viSeña) in the attributes of the
substance. The attributes are also absolutely real. Hence, Madhva
does not regard the universe of matter and souls as the body of God.
They do not qualify God because they are substantive existence
themselves. Though God is the immanent ruler of the souls and
though the souls as well as matter depend on God, yet they are
absolutely different from God and cannot form His body.

3) Ramanuja advocates qualitative monism and qualitative pluralism

of the souls, believing as he does that all souls are essentially alike.
But Madhva advocates both quantitative and qualitative pluralism of
the souls. No two souls are alike. Each has, besides its
individuality, its peculiarity also.

4) Madhva, therefore, believes that even in liberation the souls differ in

degrees regarding their possession of knowledge and enjoyment of
bliss (ananda-taratamya). Ramanuja rejects this.

5) Madhva regards God as only the efficient cause of the world and not
its material cause which is Prakåti. God creates the world out of
 the stuff of Prakåti. Ramanuja regards God as both the efficient and
material cause of the world.

6) While Ramanuja makes the liberated soul similar to God in all

respects except in some special respects like the possession of the
power of creation, preservation and dissolution of this world, and
the power of being the inner ruler of the universe, Madhva
emphasizes the difference of the liberated soul and God. The soul
becomes similar to God in some respects when it is liberated, yet
even in these respects it is much inferior to God. It does not enjoy
the full bliss of God. The bliss enjoyed by the redeemed souls is
fourfold: salokya or residence in the same place with God, samipya
or nearness to God, svarüpya or having the external form like that
of God and sayujya entering into the body of God and partially
sharing His bliss with Him. Thus, though according to Ramanuja
the liberated souls enjoys the full bliss of the realization of Brahman
which is homogeneous, ubiquitous (being everywhere) and
Supreme, according to Madhva even the most qualified soul which
is entitled to sayujya form of liberation can share only partial bliss
of Brahman and cannot become similar to Brahman (Brahma-
prakara) in the strict sense of the term.

7) Madhva believes that certain souls like demons, ghosts and some
men are eternally doomed and damned. They can never hope to get
liberation. Ramanuja rejects this. The doctrine of eternal
damnation is peculiar to Madhvacarya and Jainism in the whole
field of Indian Philosophy.

II. Some Flashes of the Madhva’s Dialetic

a) Refutation of Advaita’s Theory of Eka-jiva-vada:

(from Viñsu-tattva-vinirnaya)

The eka-jiva-vada according to which this entire universe is a figment

imagined by one embodied soul is quite unreasonable.
For the enlightenment of that one embodied soul, it should be decided
whether he is a preceptor or a pupil and then establish the required
pupil-preceptor relation. If X is that soul who is conscious of the fact
that everything is his imaginery creation, then he, as a preceptor, will
not engage himself in giving instructions to others treating as his
pupils. Because all others except himself are unreal and no purpose
will be served by giving them any instructions. Obviously, nobody
worries about his duties towards persons seen in a dream, e.g. if one
obtains a son in one’s dream one never tries for his upbringing and
education.

Moreover suppose somehow that one soul is discovered the difficult

does not then and there end. As pointed out above, he cannot function
as a preceptor to establish the required pupil-preceptor relation. He
cannot also function as a pupil, because that would make him receive
instruction from a preceptor who is none but the product of his own
imagination and thus unfit to serve any useful purpose like imparting
true knowledge.

What is the purpose of learning? It should elevate the pupil on the path
of liberation. When we consider the pupil to be that one soul, what
does happen when he gets learning? He becomes a preceptor. Is it an
elevation or a fall? As it is believed that the preceptor is the illusory
product imagined by the pupil, learned pupil when occupies the
position of the preceptor will himself become reduced from reality to
unreaity. Thus the learning instead of elevating him, will degrade him.
None will dare to undertake such a downgrading learning!

b) The Nature of the Upadhi:

(from Upadhikhasana)

The monist introduces the concept of upadhi to explain that the

Omniscient Brahman becomes the ignorant jiva due to upadhi, or the
upadhi causes ignorance in Brahman.
Sri Madhvacarya reply: All those who believe in the existence of
Brahman as described in the scriptures agree that Brahman is sarva-
jna or Omniscient. Now, how can anybody attribute ignorance to Him
to become the ignorant jiva? There cannot exist any ignorance in
Brahman and that He cannot get contaminated by ignorance.

The monist say: ‘The individual soul is in contact with body, sense-
organs etc., which constitute the limiting adjuncts of the soul and on
account of this limitation ignorance becomes possible.’ An example is
given: There is a mirror which reflects the face. When there is dirt on
the mirror, the reflection appears dirty, but the face is clean. Similarly,
the individual soul, under the influence of the body, the sense-organs,
etc., which constitute the upadhi, can very well be ignorant even
though the Brahman is omniscient.

The question then arises: How does the upadhi come in contact with
Brahman? Two alternatives are possible: Either it must be due to the
svabhava or the inherent nature of Brahman or it must come in contact
with Brahman due to ajnana or ignorance. The first alternative can not
be accepted by the monists because they will have to agree for
dualism, that means, the reality of to ultimate realities Brahman and
upadhi. If it is accepted that the upadhi is caused by ignorance, the
question arises: what is the cause of the ignorance? One cannot say
that the ignorance is caused by another previous upadhi, because one
has to explain what is the cause of that previous upadhi. Therefore this
is a example of the fallacy of anvastha or regress to infinite.

c) Brahman and the Plurality of Jivas:

According to the Advaita-vadis, Brahman, the only Reality, gets

contaminated by infinite number of the upadhis and appears as many
souls. If this is accepted to explain the pluralidade of the jivas, then it
will imply necessarily that as long as these souls are in saàsara-
bandhana, even Brahman will get entangled in the same bondage,
because, it is only Brahman, Who, due to the influence of the upadhis,
is transmigrating in the form of the souls. Are the monists ready to
enchain their Brahman in this manner?
Secondly, it is a fact that all souls cannot get the benefit of liberation
whereas many will remain stuck in the worldly bondage. What will
then be the position of Brahman? Will It be bound or liberated? It is
not possible to believe that It is liberated, because It is there in the
worldly bondage in the form of conditioned souls.

The monist cannot contend that the upadhi does not contaminate his
Pure Brahman. Because in that case, he will have to admit two
Brahmans, one Pure and not having any contact with upadhis and
another sa-upadhika-brahman, who gets contact of upadhis and
becomes bound in saàsara as jivas.

d) Ajnana and Upadhi:

Now there are two concepts believed by the monist, viz. ajnana and
uphadhi. But can he explain satisfactorily their existence since both
are false? When the advaita-vadin attributes falsity to the upadhis, he
must depend upon a prior ajnana, because ajnana happens to be the
cause of mithyatva or falsity. Now can he agree to the prior existence
of ajnana as the cause of mityatva? That is also not possible because
the ajnana must subsist in something as its support. But ajnana cannot
subsist in Brahman, the only One Reality. Therefore they say that the
ajnana which affects the jiva, resides in him as the support. But it
gives rise to the question: “What is the status of he jiva? Is he real or
unreal?” If real there will result dualism. To avoid this, the monist will
have to state that the jiva is none other than Brahman Itself but
contaminated by ajnana. That means that the ignorance has its abode
in the ‘ignorance-affected’ Brahman. But how can there be the
‘ignorance-affected’ Brahman before coming into existence of the
ignorance itself?

e) The ASraya of Ajnana:

According to the Advaita-vadin, there are three entities: ajnana, jiva
and mithya-upadhi. Then the question is: “What is the aSraya or abode
of ajnana?” The monist’s reply is: “the jiva is the aSraya of ajnana.”
The next question then is: “What is the status of this jiva?” And the
reply is ready-made: “The jiva is Brahman only affected by mithya-
upadhi.” Then, “What about the cause of the mithya-upadhi?”, is the
further question. “The cause of the mithya-upadhi is the ajnana”, is the
ready reply. Sri Madhvacarya asks: “Do all these questions and
answers solve the basic problem of the exact aSraya of ajnana?” Not
at all. Because the existence of the mithya-upadhi depends upon the
prior establishment of the ajnana; the existence of the jiva depends
upon the prior existence of he mitya-upadhi; and the establishment of
the ajnana depends upon the prior existence of the jiva as its abode.
There results the fallacy of cakraka or arguing in a vicious circle.
E POST- MADHVA PERIOD

I. Life and Works of Jayathirtha (1345-88)

After Madhva, the next great acarya of the Sampradaya is

Jayatirtha. He raised the Dvaita phiposophy to a position of
Sastraic equality with the Advaita and ViSiñTadvaita, by his
remarkable industry, depth of scholarship and masterly exposition.
For beauty of language and brilliance of style, for proportion,
keenness of argument and fairness in reasoning, for refreshing
boldness, originality of treatment and fairness of critical acumen,
Sanskrit philosophical literature has few equals to place beside him.
He stands supremely inimitable and belongs to the class of the great
makers of style, especially Sanskrit philosophical prose - like
Sabara (commentator on Jamini's works), Sankaracarya, and his
commentator Vacaspati MiSra.
If Madhva's works were not commented by Jayatirtha, they would
never have had prominence in the philosophical world.
He was honored with the title of Tikacarya. Even Vyasatirtha, the
other great name in the Madhva line, recognized his position.
So complete has been the domination of Jayatirtha's works in Dvaita
literature of the post-Madhva period that, except for a few cases, the
entire course of its subsequent history has been one of
commentaries and sub-commentaries on the Tikas of Jayatirtha.
Because of his brilliance, he has eclipsed the works of his
predecessors, as Trivikrama Pasòita, Padmanabha Tirtha, Narahari
and others.
Jayatirtha's father was a nobleman of military rank. He, Jayatirtha,
was a keen sportsman, a good rider and athlete. Early in his life he
was married to two wives. At the age of twenty he was in the course
of one of his riding excursions to the bank of the Candrabhaga river
to quench his thirst. He did not even take the trouble to dismount,
but rode into the river and bending down from on horseback, put his
mouth to the water and drank. On the other side of the river sat an
ascetic watching the sight. It was Akñobhya Tirtha. He called
Jayatirtha to his side and put him certain strange questions which "at
 once flashed before the youth's mental eye a vision of his past life".
He was strangely affected and sought to be taken as a disciple. His
father tried to change his decision but failed. Then he was allowed
to go back to his guru. He was soon ordained a monk under the
name Jayatirtha, and started learning the Sastras under Akñobhya
Tirtha.
Jayatirtha's main litery works are:
a) Nyaya-Sudha - commentary on Madhva's Anuvyakhyana; b)
Tattva-prakaSika - commentary on Madhva's Brahma-sütra-
bhañya; c) Pramasa-paddhati; d) Vadavali;
e) and more seventeen works, most of them as commentary on
Madhva's works.

II. Life and Works of Vyasatirtha (1460-1539)

About a century after Jayatirtha came Vyasatirtha, the prince of

dialecticians in the Dvaita system.
He became a sannyasi while still in his teens. (it is said that his
father had no sons, but by the blessings of Brahmasya Tirtha, he got
three a girl and two boys. He had promised to give a second son to
Brahmasya Tirtha. This son was Vyasatirtha). Not long after his
guru Brahmasya Tirtha passed away, and he was sent to study
Advaita, ViSiñTadvaita and MimaàSa systems at Kanchipuram.
After this he studied logic and Madhva Sastras under the celebrated
Sripadaraja.
Then Vyasatirtha was sent by Sripadaraja to the court of
Vijayanagar, where he was very sucessful in debating with many
leading scholars. After some time he was honored as the Guardian
Saint of the Kingdom. He became the guru of the famous king
Kåñsadevaraya.
Vyasatirtha was almost the second founder of system of Madhva.
In him, the secular and philosophical prestige of the system of
Madhva reached its highest point of recognition. The strength
which he infused into it through his labours and personality has
contributed, in no small measure, to its being even today a living
and flourishing faith in South India as a whole.
 He passed away in 1539 at Vidyanagar and his samadhi, as well as
that of Jayatirtha, is in Nava-Vrndavana, an island on the
Tungabhadra river near Anegondi.
The historian Dasgupta stated: "The logical skill and depth of acute
dialectical thinking shown by Vyasatirtha stands almost unrivalled
in the whole of Indian thought".
Vyasatirtha wrote ten works in all. The most famous of these are: a)
Nyayamåta, b) Tarkatasòava and c) Tatparya-candrika.
The work 'Nyayamåta' was the starting point of a series of brillian
dialectical classics. The challenge thrown out by Vyasatirtha in his
book was taken up by Madhusüdana Sarasvati, in his 'Advaitasidhi'.
This was, in its turn, criticized by Ramacarya his Tarangisi
(beginning of the 17th century); which was again criticized by
Brahmananda Sarasvati, who was, in his turn, refuted by Vanamali
MiSra.

III. Madhva School and its Institutions

Towards the close of his life, Sri Madhvacarya had ordained eight
monks (HåñikeSa Tirtha, Narasiàha, Janardana, Upendra, Vamana,
Viñsu (Madhva's brother), Rama and Adhokñaja Tirtha for the
conduct of worship of Sri Krishna at his maTha in Udupi. These
eight became the founder of the añTa-maThas: 1) Palimar, 2)
Adamar, 3) Kåñsapür, 4) Puttige, 5) Sirür, 6) Sode, 7) Kasür, and 8)
Pejavar maTha.
The svamis of the eight maThas hold office as high priests of the Sri
Kåñsa MaTha, by turns, for two years each. This biennial change of
office is known as ‘Paryya’. This unique and well organized
system of religious worship and administration is generally believed
to have been introduced by Vadiraja Svami, in the 16th century.
There are also two other maThs - Bhasòarkee and Bhimanakatte -
descending from Acyutaprajna with Satyatirtha at their head.
Besides these, a group of four itinerant disciples of Sri
Madhvacarya - Padmanabha, Narahari, Madhava and Akñobhya -
founded seperate maThs. These four maThs were descending
together. But after Jayatirtha it branched of into two and some years
later one of these split again. Then these three maThs are going on
now by the names of: 1) Vyasaraja maTha, 2) Raghavendra Svami
maTha, and 3) Uttaradi maTha. These three maThs now enjoy the
status of "MaTha-traya" or the three premier Madhva maThs
descended from Jayatirtha.
Although many svamis of the Udupi MaThs have made important
contributions to Dvaita literature, actually most of the makers of the
Dvaita Vedanta and its literature comes from the MaTha-traya, in
the line descended from Jayatirtha.
PART III KUMARA SAMPRADAYA

A SRI NIMBARKACARYA

I. His Life

Nothing much for certain is known about the life of Sri Nimbarka.
Some say that he was born in a Telugo brahmasa family somewhere
on the banks of the Godadvari. According to a different account,
however, he was born in Nimbagrama near Govardhana, and his
parents were Arusa and Jayanti, or from another source, Jagannatha
and Sarasvati.

Nimbarka is also called Nimbaditya or Niyamananda. The name

Nimbarka means "the sun of the Nimba tree". It is said that when
he was five years old and ascetic came to his house. They were
engaged in philosophical discussion till sunset. Then it was offered
some food to the ascetic who diclined because the sun had already
set. But by his mystic power Nimbarka showed him that the sun
was still over a Nimba tree nearby, and the guest took his meal.

The date of his birth is also uncertain. The most probable is that he
flourished in the period after Ramanuja and before Madhvacarya.

Nimbarka was a naiñThika brahmacai through his lifetime. He is

said to have practiced a severe penance under a Nimba tree, living
on the juice of its fruit only. Afterwards, he visited all the holy
places and travelled all around preaching the Vaiñsava religion
wherever he went. Later on he stayed for some years in
Naimiñaranya.

The tradition says that the Supreme Lord as HaàSavatara taught

transcendental knowledge to the four Kumaras, who imparted to
Narada Muni who, in his turn, personally instructed Nimbarka. In
his writings, Nimbarka refers to Narada Muni as his guru.
II. Nimbarka’s Literary Work and Others

Nimbarkacarya wrote a short commentary on Vedanta Sütra called

Vedanta-parijata-saurabha. He composed also a small work
containing ten stanzas called DaSa-Sloki. In these verses Nimbarka
affirms that Brahman is Sri Kåñsa, and He is to be meditated upon
at all times. Devotion to him is the highest sadhana, and the object
of meditation is not Kåñsa alone, rather Sri Sri Radha-Kåñsa.
Nimbarkacarya also wrote some other compositions as Sri Kåñsa-
stava-raja and Madhva-mukha-mardana.

Nimbarka's immediate disciple Srinivasa wrote a commentary on

Vedanta-parijata-saurabha called Vedanta-kaustubha, on which
KeSava Kañmiri (31st in his disciplic succession) wrote his
Kaustubha-prabha. Puruñottamacarya (3rd after Nimbarka)
commented on the DaSa-sloki in his Vedanta-ratna-manjusa.
B NIMBARKA’S SVABHAVIKA-
BHEDABHEDA-VADA

I. General Aspects

1) Different Types of Bhedabheda:

Some other philosophers presented previously to Nimbarka different

conceptions of bhedabheda as Auòulomi, YadavaprakaSa and
Bhaskara (996-1061).
Bhaskara’s bhedabheda, for example, is called ‘aupadhika-
bhedabheda’ because, to him, abheda, non-difference, is real and
eternal, while bheda, difference, is unreal and accidental due to the
upadhis (‘accidental predicates’ or 'limiting adjuncts' like body and
the senses), which disappear on the attainment of mokña.

2) Nirgusa Versus Sagusa Texts:

a) In the Srutis there are some passages which appear to declare the
there is identity between Brahman and the jiva. For example, there
are passages like tat tvam asi and aham brahmasmi which appear to
declare the said identity. Certainly there are also passages which
proclaim the distinction between the two; e.g. nityo nityanaà
cetanaS cetananam; dva suparsa sakhaya and so on. What is the
truth, whether identity or distinction? And how to reconcile the two-
fold passages to assert the truth?

b) Nimbarka considers the bheda and abheda statements from the

Srutis equally real. He takes both literally. He reconciles both the
points of view, apparently contradictory statements, which
 sometimes seem to support identity and sometimes difference. He
does not do any interpretation, trying to adjust to the particular
philosophy, as we have seen in Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva and
Vallabha's works. It is free from any effort to distort their real
meaning.

II. Philosophical Points

1) Relation between Brahman, cit and acit

According to Nimbarka, there exists three equally real and co-eternal

realities - Brahman, cit and acit. Brahman is the controller
(niyantå), the cit is the enjoyer jiva (bhoktå) and acit is the
enjoyable matter (bhogya). The question then is what is the relation
between these three?
In the first place, there is one essential difference of nature
(svarüpa-bheda) between Brahman on the one hand, the soul and
the world on the other. Brahman is the cause and the soul His
effect, and there is evidently a difference between the cause and its
effect, as between the sea and the waves, or the sun and its rays.
Also Brahman is the whole and the soul His part, and the part and
the whole cannot be identical. Again, Brahman is the object to be
worshiped, the object to be known, the object to be attained, while
the soul is the knower, the worshiper and the attainer. Further,
Brahman, as the inner Controller, dwells within the soul and
controls him, therefore the Dweller and the place dwelt in, the
controller and the controlled must be different. Other essential
differences between Brahman and the soul are that while the former
is never subject to avidya, absolute and always free from sins,
capable of realizing all His wishes at once. Also He is all pervading
and possessed of the power of creation, maintenance and
destruction.
Obviously the jiva does not possess these qualities and even the
freed soul, who is similar to Brahman in many aspects, differs from
Him in these last two points (all-pervasiveness and power of
creation).
 In the very same manner, there is an essential difference between
Brahman and the universe. Brahman is the cause and the universe
is the effect. Brahman is sentient, non-gross, non-material, ever
pure, but the universe is quite the reverse. One is the Ruler and the
other is ruled. Therefore, the difference between Brahman and the
souls or the universe is evident - it is eternal, natural and
undeniable.
Nevertheless, the non-difference, on the other hand, is no less true.
The souls and the universe as effects and parts of Brahman are
completely dependent on Him for its very being and existence. In
this sense they are non-different.
Therefore the relation between them is neither absolutely distinct
nor absolutely non-distinct. It is a relation of natural difference-
non-difference (svabhavika-bhedabheda), just like that between a
snake and its coil, or between the sun and its rays.
The conclusion is that the difference (bheda) and non-difference (abheda) between Brahma

2) Kinds of Souls:

The souls are broadly of two kinds souls in bondage (baddhas) and
those that are free (muktas).
The baddhas are of two kinds: mumukñus or those who, after having
undergone all sorts of pains and miseries in the world, have lost all
attachment for it, but wish to get rid of their earthly existence and
attain salvation; and bubhukñus, or those who hanker after earthly
enjoyment.
The mumukñus are of two kinds: bhagavata-bhavapatti, or those
who desire to attain the nature of the Lord; and nija-svarupapatti, or
those who desire to attain their real nature.
The bubhukñus also are of two kinds: bhaviSreyaskah, or those who
hanker after future happiness (going to heaven); and nitya-saàsari,
or those who hanker after ordinary earthly enjoymets only.
The muktas are of two kinds: nitya-muktas, or those who are ever-
free; and baddha-muktas, or those who were in bondage previously ,
but are now free.
The nitya-muktas are of two types: anantaryya, the paraphernalia of
the Lord, for example, the flute, dresses, crown, etc, which are
 considered as living beings; and parñada, or the eternal associates
of the Lord.
In its turn the baddha-muktas are also of two types: bhagavata-
bhavapatti, those who have attained supreme bliss consequent on
their attaining the very nature of the Lord; and nija-svarüpapatti,
those who are content with the bliss consequent on their attaining
their own nature.

3) Process of Attaining Mokña:

A man desirous of salvation approaches a guru, and follow the

sadhanas as directed by him; this has the effect of pleasing the
Lord, Who Himself frees him the shackles of avidya all karmas,
good or bad, which are the causes of bondage. However he has to
wait till he has completely exausted the effects of works which have
already begun to bear fruit (prarabdha-karmas). After that, when he
is completely freed from them and has no more birth to undergo, his
soul leaves the body through the vein which passes out of the crown
of the head, follow the ‘path of Gods’ (deva-yana described in the
Upaniñads) and attains the world of Brahman.
Then, through the grace of the Lord, he can have a direct vision of
the Lord, and attains the nature and qualities of the Lord and this is
salvation.

4) Sadhanas:

There are five types of sadhanas, according to Nimbarka. Although

bhakti is not included, it accompanies each of these.
a) karma, which purifies the mind , and makes it fit for knowledge and meditation.
b) jnana, or knowledge about God.
c) meditation on the Lord.
d) prpatti, self-surrender to the Lord
e) gurüpasatti, self-surrender to the guru.

5) Theology:
 The eternal relation between God and men, according to Nimbarka, is
a relation between the worshiped and the worshipper. But this
relation is not out of awe, but a most intimate relation of love and
spontaneous devotion.
The personal God worshiped by Nimbarka is Gopala-Kåñsa the
cowerd Kåñsa, brought up in the house of Nandagopa, engaged in
playful pastimes with the gopis, and attended by Sri Radha.
Therefore the object of worship in Nimbarka sampradaya is Sri Sri
Radha-Kåñsa.

III. Some Comparisons to Sri Caitanya’s philosophy

a) Gauòiya philosophy agrees with Nimbarka in many points. Both

give equal importance to identity and difference. The concept of
“svabhavika” is acceptable in the sense that both difference and
identity are real. Also Nimbarka, for his side, in his commentary on
Vedanta-sütra, suggests that the simultaneous presence of identity
and difference is due to the acintya-Sakti of Brahman.

b) If there is svabhavika-bhedabheda between Brahman and jiva, the

impurities and imperfections of the jiva must also belong to
Brahman. But Brahman is by nature pure and perfect. Similarly,
the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence found in Brahman
must be shared by the jivas, who are by nature limited in their
knowledge and power. But Brahman is not affected at all by the
impurities and imperfections of the jivas, therefore this relation is
not only svabhavika but acintya.

c) Nimbarkacarya considers acit, the insentient potency of Brahman,

of three types: 1) prakåta (product of prakåti), 2) aprakåta (not a
product of prakåti) and 3) kala (time). This acit-aprakåta refers to
the material cause of everything that exists in the spiritual world the
Supreme dhama of the Lord, including the bodies, dresses,
ornaments, etc. of the Lord and his associates. But for the
Gauòiyas, the Lord is not different from His body, paraphernalia,
and everything else in the dhama.
IV ViSiñTadvaita Versus Svabhavika -Bhedabheda

1) Points of Dissimilarity:

Ramanuja’s ViSiñTadvaita

a) The highest reality is Viñsu.

No mention of Kåñsa and Radha.

b) The sentient souls and non-sentient substance are attributes or

modes of the Lord.

c) Difference qualifies non-difference

and is as such subordinate to it.
More emphasis on the principle of identity.

d) Bhakti means continuous meditation.

e) The relation between God and man

is a distant relation of reverence.

f) More intellectual.
Nimbarka’s Svabhavika-Bhedabheda

The highest reality is Kåñsa, accompanied by Radha.

They are power of the Lord, and not His attributes.

Difference and non-difference are precisely on the same level, none

being subordinate to the other. Equal emphasis on both the
principles.

It means intense love.

The relation between them is an intimate relation of love.

More religious.
2) Points of Similarity:

a) Brahman is a personal God, endowed with infinite auspicious

attributes and prowess and free from all defects, the One identical
material and efficient cause of the universe.

b) The souls are knowledge by nature, knowers, doers, enjoyers,

atomic, innumerable, dependent and real in bondage as well as in
release.

c) The non-sentient substance is of three kinds matter, pure matter

and time; and is real and dependent on the Lord.

d) Difference and non-difference are both real.

e) Meditation, based on knowledge and accompanied by proper

actions, is the means of salvation.

f) Salvation is the full development of the nature of the individual

soul, and its attaining similarity with the Lord. There is no jivan-
mukti.

g) The grace of the Lord is an essential condition of salvation.

PART IV RUDRA SAMPRADAYA

A EARLY PERIOD

I. Sri Viñsusvami
 Sri Visunsvami is the founder acarya of the Rudra Sampradaya
which is supposed to be the oldest of the four recognized Vaiñsava
sampradayas. Biographical data concerning to him are too few to
enable one to reconstruct any history of his life and career. He does
not seem to have written many books except his commentary on
Vedanta-sütra, Sarvajna-sukta, quoted by Sridhara Svami in his
commentaries on Viñsu Purasa and Srimad- Bhagavatam.
An important consideration is that Bilvamangala Thakura who was
a younger contemporary of Sankaracarya belonged to the
Viñsusvami sampradaya after his conversion to Vaiñsavism. So for
this we conclude that Sri Viñsusvami was the earliest of all
Vaiñsava acaryas.
Although technically Vallabhacarya religion belongs to Viñsusvami
line, we hardly find reference about the acarya in the main books of
that sect
The worshipable deity of in this line is Lord Sri Nåsiàhadeva.

1) The Three Viñsusvamis:

Srila Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati Thakura give us some more

information. There were three acaryas bearing the same name of
Viñsusvami in that line, he says. The first one was Adi Viñsusvami
and he is said to born about the 3rd century BC. His father was a
minister in the Pasòya country. The Pasòyam king along with him
went to Puri and they rediscovered the deities of Jagannatha,
Baladeva and Subhadra who were in the Buddist's hands. They
removed the deities back to the main temple and this is said to be
the origin of Rathayatra. Sri Viñsusvami was the first Vaiñsava to
adopt Tridasòa Sannyasa and he had seven hundred sannyasi
disciples. It was he who introduced the añTottara-Sata-nami
sannyasa (108 designations of sannyasi), including the daSa-namis
which was adopted by Sankaracarya. After some time this line
became practically extinct.
Then, Raja Gopala Viñsusvami revived the old Viñsusvami sect in
the beginning of the 9th century, Srila Bhaktisidhanta says. He
began an active propaganda with renewed enthusiasm. He installed
the Varadaraja temple in Kanci, the famous Ranchorlal in Dvaraka,
 and some other deities in different tirthas. The Suddhadvaita
system of Viñsusvami again came to prominence, and the leader
was this Viñsusvami king. This revival of the Vaiñsavism took
place just after the demise of Sankaracarya.
The third and last revival of this line came under Andhra
Viñsusvami in the 14th century and Vallabhacarya would possibly
be an effect or consequence of this phase.
It is said that after the disappearance of Sri Viñsusvami, the Saivite
community tried to misappropriate Viñsusvami’s Sarvajna-sukta
which they modified to a great extent to suit their concepts.
II. Sridhara Svami

One of the most important names in the Viñsusvami line is the

famous Sridhara Svami. On account of his commentary on Srimad
Bhagavatam, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted it as the most
authentic, and introduced it as such in His school. Srila Jiva
Gosvami not only mentions Sridhara Svami among those whose
writings influenced him in forming the Gauòiya system of
philosophy, but called him ‘the defender of bhakti’ in the beginning
of his Krama-sandarba, which is the further elaboration of Sridhara
Svami's commentary. Another authentic writer of the Gauòiya
system, Srila Visvanatha Cakravati, offers allegiance to Sridhara
Svami in the beginning of his commentary Sarartha-darSini on
Srimad-Bhagavatam. Srila Rüpa Gosvami also quotes several
slokas from him and his godbrother Lakñmidhara in his Padyavali.
It is therefore quite obvious that Sridhara Svami's writings greatly
influenced the Gauòiya thought.
There are some controversies about Sridhara Svami’s affiliation.
Some take him as an impersonalist, as the Madhva’s followers, but
this view is unjustified, since he criticizes the Mayavadi philosophy
throughout his writings, such as his Bhavarta-dipika, commentary
on Srimad Bhagavatam, Subodhini, commentary on Bhagavad-gita,
and Atma-prakaña, on Viñsu Purasa. Sridhara Svami accepted the
Pancaratra literature while Sankaracarya was hostile to it.
The proofs that Sridhara Svami belongs to Viñsusvami sampradaya
is that he accepts Rudra as the original founder of the his system
and Sri Narasiàhadeva, the official Deity. He also wrote a poem
called Vraja-vihara dealing with the love of Kåñsa and the gopis,
which had some verses included in Rüpa Gosvami's Padyavali. The
same theme was the subject of the Bilvamangala's Kåñsa
Karnamåta, which belongs to the same line.
There is nevertheless some difficulty in establishing Sridhara
Svami’s position. Vallabhacarya and his followers although
theoretically identified with Viñsusvami line do not accept him.
Vallabhacarya flourished in the 16th century whereas Sridhara
Svami lived in the 14th century, and Viñsusvami was established
long before. The Vallabhacarya sect is not a direct continuation of
 Viñsusvami’s line but a branch of it, so that it might differ from
Sridhar Svami or from the main line.

B SRI VALLABHACARYA (1481-1533)

I. His Life

Vallabhacarya was born in a family of brahmasas from South India

in a village near Benares. His forefathers are said to have
performed one hundred soma-yajnas. He was delivered from the
womb in the seventh month underneath a tree, when Lakñmana
BhaTTa, his father was fleeing from Benares on hearing about the
invasion of that city by Muslims.
He received initiation from his father in his eighth year, and was
handed over to Viñsucitta, with whom he began his early studies.
His studies of the Vedas were carried on under several teachers, all
of them belonging to the Madhva line.
After the death of his father, Vallabhacarya started on his first
pilgrimage and also started initiating disciples. Hearing of a
disputation in the court of the king of Vidyanagara he proceeded to
the place along with some of his disciples, carrying the Srimad
Bhagavatam and a Salagrama sila with him.
The debate at Vidyanagara was about the nature of Brahman -
nirviSeña or saviSeña. There Vallabhacarya defeated the great
mayavadi Vidyatirtha after a discussion which lasted for many days.
In that discussion was also present the great acarya from Madhva
sampradaya, Vyasatirtha, who was the pasòita and guru of the
court.
From Vidyanagara, he moved towards many places in the south like
Kanci, Cidambaram, RameSvaram, etc. Then he went northwards
visiting many tirthas and towns.
In many occassions he was received with the great respect by the
local kings. He visited Udupi, Gokarsa, Pandharpur, Nasik,
MaThura, Våndavana and then proceeded to the extreme West to
Dvaraka. From there he went to Badrinath via Kurukñetra and
Haridwar. Then downwards to Allahabad, Benares, Gaya and
 finally Puri, where he met Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Then he
proceeded again to Dvaraka, then to Puskar, Våndavana and again
to Badrinath. Returning to Benares he married Maha-Lakñmi.
Afterwards he did another trip to Dvaraka, Badrinath and
Våndavana, and when he returned again to Benares he performed a
great soma-yajna.
Vallabhacarya had two sons Gopinatha and ViTThalanatha. In the
last phase of his life he renounced the world and became a sannyasi.
He passed away in 1533 on the banks of the Ganges in Benares.
Gopinatha, who was very young at that time was appointed his
sucessor but it happened that he died soon. Then ViTThalanatha
was the actual sucessor of his father.

II. Vallabhacarya's Works

Sri Vallabha is said to have eighty five main disciples and to have
written eighty four literary works. Out of these works, only thirty
one are available presently. The main ones are the following:

1) Tattvartha-dipa-nibandha it contains three parts: The first

explains
Bhagavad-gita, the second gives a comparative study of other
philosophies,
and the third explains Srimad-Bhagavatam.
2) Asu-bhañya commentary on Vedanta-sütra, but incomplete.
The remaining
portion was supplied by his son ViTThalavatha.
3) Purva-Mimansa-bhañya commentary on the Jaimini-sütras.
4) Subodhini commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam (also
incomplete).
5) ÑoòaSa Granthas groups of sixteen books containing the
essence of
Vallabha’s teachings.
C SUDDHADVAITA PHILOSOPHY

I. Basic Philosophical Points

a) According to Sri Vallabhacarya's doctrine of Suddhadvaita (Pure

Non-Dualism), Brahman is a pure unity, free from Maya. It is also
free from the three kinds of differences known as svajatiya-bheda,
vijatiya-bheda and svagata-bheda. It is omniscient and omnipotent
and possesses an infinite number of attributes. It has marvellous
powers (aiSvarya) by virtue of which it can even hold together
things or attributes which are mutually opposed. Thus, it is bothe
qualified (sagusa) and unqualified (nirgusa).

b) Vallabhacarya accepts four works as authority: 1) The Vedas, 2)

Bhagavad- gita, 3) Vedanta-sütra, 4) Srimad-Bhagavatam. The
order of these works is based on the fact that the doubts in each
preceeding work are removed by the one that follows. The doubts
in the Vedas are to be removed by the light of the Gita; those in the
Gita in the light of the Vedanta-sütra; those in the Vedanta-sütra in
the Srimad-Bhagavatam. Vedanta-sütra is a commentary on the
Upaniñads, and Srimad-Bhagavatam is considered a commentary
on Gita, but also Srimad-Bhagavatam explains and develops all the
points of the Vedanta-sütra. Srimad Bhagavatam enjoys the most
important position in the Suddhadvaita system.

II. Two Types of Brahman

a) Parabrahman - the highest entity is Brahman, Who is sat, cit,

ananda and rasa, and is identified with Sri Kåñsa. He is devoid of
worldly qualities; the negation of qualities in Brahman, mentioned
in the Upaniñads, refer to the absence of material qualities in Him.
He possesses a spiritual body made up of ananda, and He is infinite.
He creates the universe out of Himself, and He is thus both the
efficient and material cause of the universe. Although the world is
full of people both happy and unhappy, Brahman cannot be charged
 with practicing cruelty or partiality, simply because He has created
the world out of Himself in lila. Again, He does not undergo any
change even when He transforms Himself in this world.

b) Akñara-Brahman - Next to and lower than Parabrahman is Akñara

(immutable) Brahman. He possesses sat, cit and limited ananda.
He is the dhama or abode of Parabrahman. He appears in this
world as antaryami and avataras. He appears in the forms of
prakåti (matter) and puruña (soul); and this prakåti develops
through different stages into the universe, and is therefore called
‘the cause of all causes’.

III. Jivas and the World

1) Tirobhava and Avirbhava:

a) Jivas and the world are identical with Brahman. Jiva is Brahman
with the quality of bliss obscured, and the phisical world is
Brahman with the qualities of bliss and intelligence obscured.
Creation and destruction in their case mean the appearance
(avirbhava) and disappearance (tirobhava) of Brahman in these
forms.
b) Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause of jiva and the
world, manifesting itself in these forms simply for the purpose of
lila. In doing so, It does not undergo any change in essence. It is just
like snake forming itself into coil.

2) The Jivas:

a) The Lord was alone, without a second, in the beginning of a cycle.

He desired to be many for the sake of pleasure and as he desired
millions of souls came instantaneously out of Aksara Brahman like
sparks from fire. In special cases the souls may emanate from the
 Lord Himself. The soul is thus an aàSa (part) of Brahman and is
eternal.
b) With a view to enjoing lila, the Lord suppressed the element
ananda in the soul, who consequently became subject to bondage
and wrong knowledge. The Lord, in order to bring about variety
which is essential for the sake of pleasure, makes the soul varied in
nature.
c) There are three categories of jivas:
c1) Suddha (pure) those which its divine qualities, such as
aiSvarya, are not
obscured by avidya.
2
c ) saàsarin those which its divine qualities are obscured by the
will of the
Lord, and come in contact with avidya, identifying
themselves with the
gross and subtle bodies.
3
c ) mukta those who, by the will of the Lord, are freed from
bondage by
vidya and bhakti.
d) The saàsarin souls can be grouped into three classes:
d1) pravaha - those that are busy with worldy matters.
d2) maryada - those that follow the Vedic parth according to the
letter of
the Vedas
3
d ) puñTi - those that worship the Lord out of pure love
engendered only
through divine grace.

3) The Universe:

a) The universe is the effect of Brahman and is real and non-different

from Him.He represents the adhibhautika (material) form of
Brahman.
b) The element sat is manifest in it, while cit and ananda are latent.
c) The Lord has created the universe out of His own self for the sake
of lila without suffering any change whatsoever and is related to it
as the spider is to its web. For the sake of diversity, the Lord makes
 the souls subject to His power of avidya which is the root cause of
the ideas of "I" and "mine".
d) Saàsara, which is solely made up of ahanta (I-ness or egoism) and
mamata (my-ness or the idea of pleasure), has to be destroyed by
means of knowledge, devotion, etc.

IV. Mokña

1) Concept of Sarvatma-bhava:

a) He who attains the knowledge of Brahman and realizes that

everything in this world is Brahman, after attaining mokña, he is
absorbed in Akñara Brahman, and not in Parabrahman or Pürsa
Puruñottama. But if the knowledge of Brahman is associated with
devotion, the knowing devotee is absorbed in Pürsa Puruñottama.
b) The doctrine of regarding the Lord as everything is called sarvatma-
bhava (all-in-oneness), which is different from the sarvatma-bhava
of the monists (jnanis) which is 'one-in-allness' or seeing Brahman
in all things. Yet the devotees see everything in Kåñsa. The gopis
possessed this attitude in highest degree, and Lord Kåñsa had
therefore to remain quite obedient to them. The experience of
svarüpananda which is definetly superior to that of brahmananda
is, therefore, the highest conception of mokña.

2) Concept of PuñTi:

There is, again, another stage which may be described as the highest.
When the Lord desires to favour a particular soul and be it
remembered that in showing His favour He is not guided by any
other consideration than His own will He brings out the soul from
Himself, gives him a divine body like His own and plays with him
for all time. In this play, which is called nitya-lila, the Lord,
remaining subordinate to the devotee, gives him the pleasure of His
company. The divine bliss is purely a gift of the Lord and cannot be
attained by any human effort. This gift of divine grace is called
 puñTi. The best example of puñTi is found in the case of the gopis
in Våndavana. Those who enjoy this divine grace automatically
begin to love the Lord and look upon Him not only as their Lord,
but as everything.

3) PuñTi and maryada:

a) In maryada-marga, one follows the dictates of the Vedas

(yajnas,etc) and practices different types of bhakti, such as Sravana,
etc, until he begins to love the Lord, who, taking his efforts into
consederation, grants him sayujya mukti, or merging into the body
of the Lord.
In puñTi-marga, however, through the operation of divine grace
only, one starts with loving the Lord and then he practices Sravana,
etc out of that love, and not with a view to generating it.
b) The maryada-marga is open only to the males of the first three
classes - brahmasas, kñatriyas and vaiSyas; while puñTi-marga is
open to all without consederation. The followers of the puñTi-
marga worship the Lord, not because He is the Paramatma but
because they ardenly love Him. The Lord is called Gopi-jana-
vallabha, a term which is very significant in this system. The gopis
are the pioneers in this line, and others who follow them enjoy the
same divine bliss. One who follows the puñTi-marga aspires to be
a gopi and worships the Lord with that attitude. In fact, all souls
represent the feminine principle, and have the Lord as their spiritual
husband.

4) Iniciation:

a) The initiation in this system is called Brahma-sambhanda. The

devotee receives the Sarana-mantra - Sri Kåñsa Saranam mama,
and repeats another mantra (which is said to be given by Sri Kåñsa
to Vallabhacarya) in front of the deity. The guru normally is an
descendent of Vallabhacarya. The mantra says that everyone
entering in the puñTi-marga is required to dedicate themselves and
 their belongings to Kåñsa and declare himself to be the most loyal
servant of the Lord.
b) The initiate devotee has to pass his time in worshiping the deity of
Kåñsa like the gopis worshiping Kåñsa, and in reading or hearing
stories about Kåñsa. The worship of God is of three kinds - with
body, with wealth and with the mind. The last is considered the
highest form of worship and it accomplishes the realization of God.
c) Those who are connected with the Lord through love enjoy the
privilege of participating in the nitya-lila of the Lord and of
enjoying bhajana-lila, while others simply get sayujya.
d) If for any reason this kind of seva is not possible, one should not be
dissappointed. Sri Vallabhacarya tells us that such a man should
throw himself at the feet of the Lord and remain at His mercy. This
method is called prapatti or self-surrender.

5) Deity Worship:

a) The form of the Lord that is generally worshiped in this system is

Sri Nathaji, whose shrine is situated in Nathadwara, Rajastan. Sri
Nathaji is the embodiment of the twelve skandhas of Bhagavatam.
The tenth skandha is identified with the head. Sri Nathaji represents
the highest form of the Lord known as Pürsa Puruñottama. All other
Deities represent the vibhütis (powers) and the vyühas
(manifestations), and not the highest form.
b) Although Srimati Radharasi is worshipped in the company of Kåñsa
in this sampradaya, She does not enjoy as much proeminence as
She does in the Gauòiya’s.
PART IV BRAHMA-MADHVA-GAUÒIYA-SAMPRADAYA

A DOCTRINE OF ACINTYA-BHEDABHEDA
I. Some Characteristic Features

a) The relation infinite-finite, God-man, Absolute - this world is a

fundamental philosophical problem. Some emphasize the
transcendent aspect of the infinite, while others its immanent aspect.
Some emphasize difference, whereas others emphasize its identity.
b) Sankara tries to solve the problem of the relation between the
infinite and the finite, or the Absolute and this world, by cancelling
one of the terms in the relation.
To him, the finite is a result of upadhis. Since the upadhis are of the
nature of illusion and don’t exist at all, there can be no problem of
relation between that which exists and which does not exist.
But, even considering the finite as non-existent, it persists in the form
of its appearance, which cannot be denied. Then the problem of the
relation finite-infinite reappears in the form of the relation
appearance-Reality.

c) Exclusive emphasis on the concept of identity and immanence

cannot solve the problem of relation between God and the world
because leads to a virtual denial of the world as illusion. Similarly
the problem is not solved by applying the concept of exclusive
difference and transcendence because this bifurcates the reality in
two and creates un nubridgeable gulf between God and the world.

d) An ideal synthesis of identity and difference must be the cherished

goal of philosophy. But such synthesis is not possible or
conceivable through human logic.

e) The clue to the solution of the problem, according to the school of

Sri Caitanya, therefore, lies in the inconceivable power (acintya-
Sakti) of God, by which the concepts of identity and difference are
transcended and reconciled ina higher synthesis.

f) As Paramatma He is the immanent regulator and observer of the

actions of the finite souls, and the unifier of all existing things; as
Bhagavan He is the blissful Supreme Personality of Godhead,
beyond and above this material world.
(Bg 9.4-5 support this view).

g) Not is impossible for Brahman on account of His acintya-Sakti. It is

possible to Him to be both different from the world and identical
with it, to create the world out of Himself and remain out of it.

h) acintya bhedabheda is implied also to the concept of Sakti which is

a basic concept in Sri Caitanya’s philosophy. Sakti is different from
the object in which it inheres, because it cannot be conceived as
 identical with it; but simultaneously, it is identical with the object,
because it cannot be conceived as different from it. Therefore the
relationship between Brahman and Its Saktis is acintya bhedabheda,
‘inconceivable simultaneous identity and difference’.

i) If there was absolute identity between Brahman and the jivas, and
Brahman and the world, the faults and imperfections of the jivas
and the world would be the faults and imperfections of Brahman.
(To keep Brahman free from these faults, it would be necessary to
regard the jivas and the world as illusory, as Sankara did. But, in the
absence of any other real thing, Brahman will have to be regarded
as the seat of illusion. Thus, Brahman would still not be fautless.
Besides, the belief in absolute identity will falsify the Sruti texts
which clearly distinguish the jivas and the world from Brahman.)

j) If Brahman and Its Saktis are regarded absolutely different, as

Madhva did, that would give rise to dualism and would contradict
the principle of oness stressed in the Sastras (tattvaà yad jnanam
advayam).

k) The relation between God and His Saktis is said to be inconceivable

because cannot be adequately described in terms of the relation
between ‘the part and the whole’, or ‘substance and attribute’, or
even in terms of the relation between an ordinary object and its
Sakti. For, in the case of God, the part is not merely a part and the
Sakti is not merely a Sakti.The part and the whole, the Sakti and the
Saktiman (the possessor of Sakti), interpenetrate and form an
undivided whole.

l) God is essentially advaya jnana-tattva, though not a ‘pure identity’.

He appears in many forms and yet He is One; His lila, name and
form are at once different and non-diferent. Even the different parts
of His body are different and non-different, for each part can
perform the functions of the other parts and of the whole. The part
is, thus, actually identical with the whole, though still a part, and as
such different from the whole.

m) The concept of ‘acintya’ (inconceivable) in the Sri Caitanya school

is distinct from the concept of ‘anirvacaniya’ (indescribable) in the
Advaita-vedanta of Sankara.
 ‘Anirvacaniya’ is applicable to maya and its products, which can
neither be described as real nor as unreal; it does not apply to
Brahman , Who is described as real. But the category of ‘acintya’
applies to the relation between Sakti and Saktiman either in the
transcendental realm or even in this world. It applies to Brahman,
His associates (parikaras), and abodes (dhamas), as well as to jiva-
Sakti and maya-Sakti.

n) ‘Anirvacaniya’ is a negative concept, while ‘acintya’ is a positive

concept. ‘Anirvacaniya’ signifies the coming together of the
opposite concepts of ‘reality’ and ‘unreality’ which cancel each
other to produce illusion. ‘Acintya’ signifies the marriage of the
opposite concepts of ‘difference’ and ‘non-difference’ leading to a
higher and a fuller unity.

II. Distinguishing Factors of the Gauòiya Vaiñsavism.1[1]

There are basically two distinguishing factors that separate the

Gauòiya school from other Vaiñsava schools. Firstly, you have the
doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda the inconceivable difference and
non-difference between God and His energies. This was, according
the Gauòiyas, the original Vedic doctrine.
After being distorted by Buddha and then Adi Sankaracarya, it was
reinstated, at least partially, by Ramanuja, who taught
ViSiñTadvaita. Sankara had claimed oneness, that the living energy
God’s energy was one with God. But Ramanuja detected that there
was a difference as well. He agreed with the oneness aspect, but he
added a special clause ‘the living being is obviously different as
well.’
Then came Madhvacarya, who preached pure Dvaita, or ‘dualism.’
This school teaches that there is absolute difference between God
and his energies. But this teaching did not account for the
similarities. God and His energies both exist, for exemple, so in
their quality of existence they are indeed similar. It cannot,
therefore, be said that they are absolutely different.
Sankara preached one extreme. Madhva preached the other. Sri
Caitanya appeared with the perfect balance.

1[1]From ‘Vaiñëavism’ (Steven J. Rosen) Gauòéya Vaiñëavism, by A.N. Chatterjee

But the most distinctive feature of Gauòiya Vaiñsava philosophy,
especially as opposed to other Vaiñsava schools, is the very
developed conception of madhura-rati, or relationship with God in
the conjugal mood. This includes laying stress on bhakti, or
‘devotion’, more so than one can detect it in other Vaiñsava schools.
And bhakti is most developed when understood in terms of bhakti-
rasa, or relationship with God in a personal and loving way. There
are five basic relationships Santa, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, and
madhurya, and also there are seven secondary relationships.
In all of the world’s religious literature, one will not find such an
elaborate explanation of God and His relationship with the living
beings. Therefore, to go further, the special contribution of the
Gauòiyas is this very developed conception of madhürya-rasa how
one can emulate the highest devotee in the spiritual world, the
maidservant, the gopi, and attain the most intimate position in the
kingdom of God. It is a developed theological science.
In the beginning there is vaidhi-bhakti following the rules and
regulations. Then, while continuing to follow the rules and
regulations, one learns from the guru how to model one’s life after
an inhabitant of Vraja. The inner meditation. This is called
raganuga-bhakti, or ‘spontaneous devotion’, or, rather, it is
‘following an eternal associate who has spontaneous devotion’.
In any case, it is quite an advanced theological system. One can read
all of the Gauòiya literature on the subject: Govinda-lilamåta,
Caitanya-Caritamåta, Ujjvala-nilamasi, Bhakti-rasamåta-sindhu.
There are so many. After a thorough study of these books, one can
conclude: In order to best undestand madhurya-rasa, the ideal of
Rada and her love for Kåñsa must be introduced.
The culmination of the Gauòiya Vaiñsava experience is the service of
Sri Radha. Exactly how this is done is revealed in the esoterica of
the tradition. Sri Caitanya has stated that as a young man yearns for
his sweetheart, in the same manner, the human soul must yearn for
Kåñsa. Radharasi’s position is the highest and the devotee seeks to
follow in her madhurya-bhava.
First, one must approach an acomplished master, rendering service and
learning the science of spirituality. Then, very gradually, one can
advance to these other levels. On the highest level one must love
God in intimate union, which is called sambhoga, and, on an even
higher level, one must learn to love God in separation, which is
called vipralambha this allows one to truly appreciate union.
Srimati Radharasi experiences both. She is the example the very
emblem of these two ultimate experiences in God realization. Sri
Caitanya Mahaprabhu, too, in the mood of Radharasi, was
experiencing these exalted states of spiritual attainment. The
scientific procedure with which to accomplish this ultimate goal of
life is the great secret of Gauòiya Vaiñsavism.
III. Some Particular Points of the Gauòiya Philosophy and
Religion
not Found in Other Vaiñsava Sects:

1) Srimad-Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on Vedanta-sütra,

and it is the Supreme pramasa. Because the principal Upaniñads
and Vedanta-sütra do not deal explicitly with the Bhagavan aspect
of the Absolute truth, and particularly with Lord Kåñsa, they are not
given so much importance.
2) ‘Kåñsas tu Bhagavan svayam’ is the definite axiom for the
Gauòiyas.
3) The Supreme Brahman is the supreme Saktiman and possesses three
Saktis: antaranga, bahiranga and taTastha. The antaranga-Sakti
has three divisions in it: sandhini, saàvit and hladini Saktis.
4) The inter-relationship between Para-Brahman, individual souls and
this world is explained solely in terms of the acintya-Sakti of the
Lord. Para-Brahman is inconceivably and simultaneously one and
different from His Sakti. This concept is extended and applied to
many different aspects of this system. Therefore, the Gauòiya
philosophy is known as acintya-bhedabheda-vada.
5) For the Gauòiyas, bhakti is the bhajana or seva loving service to the
Lord, not merely upasana or meditation. In fact no sadhana can
achieve its perfection (mokña) without bhakti to the Supreme Lord.
6) Complete self surrender is not a sepatate process from bhakti; rather
it is its basic principle.
7) Prema and not mokña is the supreme puruñartha.
8) A Vaiñsava has a status superior to any varsa or aSrama.
9) Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is directly the combined forms of Sri Sri
Radha and Kåñsa. He is the Kali-yuga avatara and the bestower of
Kåñsa-prema in the form of gopi-bhava or madhurya-rasa.
10) Worship of the Lord in His aiSvarya aspect according to the
principles of vaidhi-bhakti, leads the devotee to liberation in
Vaikuntha, Dvarka or MaThura. But the Lord in His madhurya
aspect in Goloka is attained only by those following raga-marga.
11) Ekatmya or sayuja-mukti cannot be acchived by only jnana, or
meditation, or else. Mokña is attainable only through bhakti, by
surrendering to the Supreme Lord, not otherwise.
12) There exists twelve rasas or mellows in relationship with the Lord,
seven are secondary and five principal. Out of these five, sakhya,
vatsalya and madhurya-rasa are found, in their pure and complete
 manifestation, only in Goloka Våndavana. In MaThura, Dvaraka
and Ayodhya-dhama these three rasas are also found but in a mixed
state, not pure.
13) No incarnation other than Sri Kåñsa gives liberation to the demons
when He kills them.
14) Only the Gauòiyas affirm the superexcellence of the loving
sentiment in the mood of seperation (viraha or vipralamba).
15) Parakiya-rasa is the special feature in the dealings between Kåñsa
and the gopis.
APPENDIX I COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE

VAIÑSAVA SCHOOLS 2[2]

I. Relation Among God, World and the Souls

1) Differences between Vallabha’s Pure-Monism and Ramanuja’s

Qualified Monism regarding the relation between God, souls and
the world:
a) Ramanuja has accepted the individual soul and the world as
forming the attributes or modes of God.
b) Vallabha says that the relation of individual self and the world to
God is that of part to the whole. He does not regard individual
soul and the world as inseparable from God in the sense of
substance and attributes.
2) Differences between Vallabha’s Pure Monism and Madhva’s
Dualism:
While Vallabha regards the world and the souls as non-different
from Brahman, to Madhva they are totally different.
3) Nimbarka’s view of bhedabheda is different from the viSiñtadvaita
of Ramanuja. The main point of distinction between them is that
while according to Ramanuja difference is an attribute of unity, for
Nimbarka both identity and difference have equal status in reality.
Difference is not secondary in his view.
4) Nimbarka’s view is clearly different from Vallabha’s and there is no
point of agreement between them. Vallabha is the advocate of pure-
monism and difference is not real according to him.
5) Nimbarka’s assertion of two realities (independent and dependent)
is not acceptable to Jiva Gosvami. He has rejected this distinction
and accepted God as the non-dual Reality. He does not accept souls
and world as dependent realities but as Saktis of God. He realizes
the difficulty of reconciling the relation of both identity and
difference between Sakti and possessor of Sakti but (instead of

2[2]From ‘Conceptions of God in Vaiñëava Philosophical Systems’ Dr. Manju Dube

 calling one independent and other dependent), He calls this relation
‘acintya’.
6) Madhva accepted three eternal and real entities God, soul and
matter. God is independent and soul and matter are dependent on
Him. But if the souls and matter are eternal like God then how could
Madhva say that God is the only Independent Reality? Dualism
makes supremacy of God impossible.
7) Vallabha’s system of Pure-Monism also accepts the souls and
matter as real and as the manifestations of God’s attributes. He has
accepted God as the abode of contradictory attributes. This doctrine
is established on the basis of Srutis but it is not conceivable by the
limited human reason.
8) Nimbarka has accepted both identity and difference among the three
entities. The soul and matter are dependent on God Who is the only
Independent Reality.They are non-different from God since they are
in the nature of God. They are different from Him because while
God is independent, the world and souls are dependent on Him. He
is the support of their dependent existence. The concept of
dependence necessarily involves some difference.
9) Sri Caitanya and His followers recognize the supralogical and
inconceivable nature of the relation of bhedabheda by positing the
category of ‘acintya’ which shows their sincerity and frankness.
They have supported it on the basis of scriptural passages.
II. Efficient and Material Cause of the World

a) All Vaiñsava thinkers except Madhva have accepted God as both

the efficient and material cause of the world. Madhva considers the
idea of Ramanuja (the world form the body of God and God is the
material cause of the world) as injurious to the independent magesty
of God. He has interpreted the Sastras in accordance with his view
which deny the material causality of God. God is the efficient cause
and prakåti is the material cause of the world.
b) To Ramanuja God is both the eficient and material cause of the
world. Matter exists in God in an unmanifest form in the state of
dissolution and becomes manifest when creation take place. God
Himself is transformed into the world as far as matter as an
inseparable attribute of Him is concerned.
Ramanuja admitted that the questions as to how unconscious matter
can be part of God who is essentially non-material and how a real
transformation of God (either of whole or part) can leave His
integrality and immutability unnaffected, are not answerable by
human logic.
c) Madhva strongly rejected the notion of material causality of God
and the world as His real transformation. To him the idea of
material causation necessarily involves transformation or
modifications which implies change and it is not consistent with the
Immutable nature of God. Material world cannot come out of God.
d) Vallabha accepts God both as material and efficient causes of the
world. To him world is not a transformation of God but a
manifestation of His “being” aspect. World has a separate existence
even though it is manifested from God. It is neither an appearance
nor an actual transformation but a limited manifestation of God.
e) Nimbarka holds that world is a transformation of God’s Sakti and
not of His essence. The relation between God an the world is not
that of substance and attribute but a relation between independent
and dependent.
f) Sri Caitanya holds that the world is a modification of God’s maya-
Sakti which is an external power of God. Its transformation does not
affect God’s essential nature. It stands in relation of unthinkable
difference in non-difference to God. Although world is an effect of
God through His maya-Sakti essentially He remains transcendent
and immutable.
 1) Some inconsistencies and logical dificulties of the material
causality of the world:

a) Ramanuja holds that the world is a real manifestation of God but

somehow the immutable nature of God remains unaffected. But it is
logically unintelligible to hold that mat. cause remains unchanged
while giving rise to effect. And how can immutable and partless
God transform Himself into the world? It it is the whole God that
transforms then there is no God apart from the world, and if it is
only a part, then it means that God is capable of being partitioned.
The notion of material causality necessarily implies some change.
Either the attributes of God are transformed into the effect or His
substance is transformed. None of the two is consistent with God’s
immutable nature. Moreover the material cause and its effect must
have some similarity but God and world have entirely diferent
characteristics. Thus the view of creation as a transformation of God
is not consistent with His immutability.
b) Vallabha tries to meet the problem by rejecting Ramanuja’s view of
creation as a transformation of God. He holds that the world is not a
transformation of God but a manifestation or expression of God’s
‘being’ aspect. But this does not improve the situation. The
origination of the world without any type of modification is beyond
comprehention. If there is modification then how do we distinguish
cause from effect. The effect coming out of cause without any
change or modification is unintellegible. What does Vallabha men
by saying that ther is no modification and the world shoots out of
Go’s sat aspect. Does he mean that there is some internal division
among the three atributes of God? But this is against the impartite
nature of God which is the basic principle of Pure Monism.
Vallabha has not been very successful in his attempt to reconcile the
unchangeability of God with the notion of His mat. causality.
c) Nimbarka tries to solve the difficulty by holding that God’s Sakti is
transformed into the world. The creation of the world involves a real
transformation of its material cause, but this transformation relates
to God’s Sakti and not His essence.
d) Madhva tries to meet the above difficulties by holding absolute
difference between matter and God and considers God as the
 eficient cause alone and prakåti as the mat. cause. Madhvañ theory
is consistent with the concept of an immutable God but his position
regarding prakåti as the material cause has its own difficulties.
While others vaiñsava thinkers have regarded matter as attribute or
part of God, Madhva maintains absolute difference between God
and matter. This view is defficient from religious point of view
which holds the supremacy of God. Religious consciousness
demands the dependence of everything on God also for its being. If
God is Supreme then there must be no other real entity to limit Him
from without. Dualism harms the idea of God’s supremacy.
e) Sri Caitanya’s view seems to make a definite improvement on the
views of other vaiñsava thinkers. He regards the world as real
transformation of God’s maya-Sakti which is an external power of
God and God’s essence is not affected by this. Sri Caitanya has
realized the logical inconceivability of the doctrine that Deity
escapes change when His Sakti undergoes transformation. He
frankly admitted the unthinkability of the relation of God to the
world. Reasoning cannot prove as to how does God remain
immutable, though the world is an effect of God through His maya-
Sakti. This relation can be realized only in one’s own intuitive
experience. Although the whole philosophy of Vaiñsavism is rooted
in faith other thinkers try to seek logical justifications for their
doctrine in some way or other. But reasoning does not provide any
final answer.
Sri Caitanya had the whole tradition behind Him and His doctrine of
acintya-bhedabheda can be regarded as superior to others since He
realized the limitations of logical thinking inthe realization of
religious truths which have to be accepted on faith. Sri Caitanya is
more sincere to His religious consciousness in confessing the
inability of logic to solve the mistery of the relation of God to the
world.

III. Dependence of the souls and the world to God

a) While to Ramanuja the souls and the world are viSeñana or attribute
of God, Sri Caitanya takes them as Saktis of God. Secondly while
Ramanuja regards souls and the world as two different things, the
Gauòiyas puts them under the single category of Saktis.
b) Madhva, as a firm advocate of Dualism, holds that although soul is
dependent on God, it is quite different from God and has being
outside Him. But the Gauòiyas say that the soul are the Saktis of
Brahman and they are inseparable from Him.
c) As Vallabha it is accepted that the souls are monadic fragments of
God, but absolute non-difference existing between them is not
acceptable. The souls as Saktis cannot be absolutely identical with
Him even in liberation.
d) Jiva Gosvami says that the relation of identity-in-difference
between Brahman and the world, or between Brahman and jiva,
cannot be proved by mens of the relation of cause and effect, for the
cause and the effect can never ne one. The cause does not appear as
effect in the state of cause and the effect does not appear as effect in
the state of effect. Also the relation of part and the whole does not
fit well. In the case of Brahman, the part actually is the whole and
has the same qualities and powers as the whole.
e) Ramanuja holds that the relation of soul to God is that of ‘body to
the soul’ or ‘attribute to substance’. The soul is inseparable from
God in a causal as well as in a effect state.
Madhva rejects this relation of body and soul, and to him souls are
different from God.
f) To Vallabha, the relation of soul to God is that of part to the whole.
Unlike Ramanuja he does not say that souls are inseparable from
God. He holds that though the souls are manifestations of God, they
have separate existences.
To Vallabha the atomic nature of the soul becomes pervasive when
God’s bliss becomes manifest in it. Both Ramanuja and Madhva
reject this view and they hold that asutva of soul remains unaltered
in both states.
g) Nimbarka and Sri Caitanya both accept bedhabheda but while
Nimbarka puts the soul under the category of ‘dependent’ reality,
Sri Caitanya explains it as the manifestation of God’s Sakti. Both of
them reject Ramanuja’s view of modification, Vallabha’s view of
essential identity, and Madhva’s view of pure dualism between soul
and God.

IV. Some difficulties

a) Ramanuja has employed the analogy of body and soul to explain the
relation between soul and God. He says that just as the soul is not
affected by the defects of body in the same way God is not affected
by the defects of individual soul. But we find that the soul which is
the only conscious principle in the body suffers when the body is
hurt.
Ramanuja has regarded souls as an attribute of God, and a substance
in itself. But it is not conceivable as to how one and same thing can
be both attribute and substance.
These difficulties were bound to come in Ramanuja’s system
because while on the one hand he maintains difference between God
and soul on the other hand he calls the soul inseparable from God to
show its dependence on God.
b) Madhva being Realist denounced Ramanuja’s attempt to reconcile
Absolutism and Pluralism and maintained the absolute difference
between God and souls. But he too has to face some difficulties.
It might be urged that if soul is eternal like God Himself and
entirely different from Him, how can we say that God alone is
supreme and soul is dependent on Him. The notion of God’s
supremacy is logically inconsistent if there is some second entity
which is existentially independent and real as God Himself.
c) Vallabha tried to avoid the difficulties of Ramanuja and Madhva is
his system of Pure-Monism. He holds that the souls are essentially
the same as God, and holds the relation of whole and part between
the two. In ordinary sense the parts make th whole, and whole is
dependent on parts.
But in Vallabha’s system, the souls which are regarded as parts,
depend on God who is the whole. He says that just as the sparks are
part of fire and depend on fire in the same way souls are parts of
God and are dependent on Him.
Vallabha says that God is not affectd by the defects os the soul just
as light is not affected by the objects it illuminates. But this analogy
does not carry sense because objects are not parts of light.
It cannot be said that soul and God are not only with the bliss aspect
obscured: though the two are similar, some differnce must be
maintained between them. If they are essentially the same then there
is no problem of relation between them.
d) Nimbarka classifies Reality into two, Independent and dependent.
He maintains the relation of both bheda and abheda between God
 and souls. But the view of bhedabheda sounds contradictory to our
logical understanding.
e) Sri Caitanya made an improvement on the views of other thinkers
by holding that souls and matter are the Saktis of God and are
inseparable from Him.
He realized the practical unthinkability of the doctrine of
bhedabheda and did not indulge in reasoning to show that one and
the same thing can be both different and non-different from the
identical thing and considereing this dificulty He regards the
relation as acintya.

V. God, karma

a) Madhva holds that God cannot be regarded to be guilty of partiality

or cruelty in His treatment of persons because He rewards or
punishes them according to the moral law of Sruti. The chains of
karma has no recognizable beginning and the present of the persons
is determined by the karmas of early stage. The question of
inequality at the first stage does not arise, the chain of karma is
anadi.
b) Vallabha has attributed the presence of evil to God’s will. It is a part
of Divine Lila; an expression of His joyous activity. Both good and
evil are necessary in the world play to suit His purpose. Thus unlike
other vaiñsavas who attribute evil to karma, etc. Vallabha regards it
an integral part of His divine lila.

VI. karma, jnana and bhakti

a) Vallabha and Ramanuja also hold that although bhakti is the most
effective means of mukti, the usefulness of knowledge cannot be
denounced.
Madhva says that devotion which involves love for God is the result
of the knowledge of God and the knowledge of the inanimate and
animate things.
But the Gauòiyas say that bhakti is not in need of jnana and karma.
b) Thus bhakti is said to be the direct pathway to perfection and
karma and jnana are regarded as auxiliaries to bhakti. But the
degree of importance attached to karma and jnana is different
according to each thinker.
Ramanuja has regarded karma and jnana as equally important. To
him the two are independent. Desinterested performance of duty is a
necessary precondition for the realization of atma.
But Madhva regarded karma as less important than jnana. To him,
although it is necessary for human beings to work through karma , it
should be regarded only as an accessory to spiritual realization.
c) Vallabha regards both karma and jnana as necessary for spiritual
progression and as auxilliary to each other.
d) Nimbarka holds that karma is subordinate to jnana for the
attainment of jnana one must perform actions. The effects of
karmas are destroyed through knowledge.
e) Sri Caitanya’s views is different. He holds that bhakti is
independent to karma and jnana. Unlike karma and jnana, bhakti is
capable of leading to the right goal independently.
f) Vallabha and Sri Caitanya have considered bhakti both a means and
an end in itself.
APPENDIX II THE LIVES OF THE ALVARS

I. Poygai, Bhütam and Pey Alvar

Poygai, Bhütam and Pey were contemporaneous. They are the most
ancient of the Alvars.

Poygai Alvar, otherwise known as Saro-Muni, took birth from a

golden lotus-flower in a tank situated within the holy Viñsu temple of
Kancipuram. Born in the Dvapara Age, Siddartha year, he as actually a
partial manifestation of Lord Viñsu’s conchshell, the Pancajanya.

Bhütam Alvar was born the following day in Mallapura, out of a

Madhavi blossom. He manifested from Lord Viñsu’s club, the
Kaumodaki.

Pey Alvar took birth from a red lotus-flower growing in the holy well
of the Adi-KeSava-Perumal temple, in Mayura-puri. People called him
Bhrantha-yogi because his love for God made him appear demented.
He was empowered by Maha-Viñsu’s sword, the Nandaka, and his
birth was one day after Bhütam’s. Thus, Poygai was born on Tuesday,
Bhütam on Wednesday, and Pey on Thursday.

All three were blessed with the qualities of goodness; the lower modes
of passion and ignorance could not touch them. They knew what
bondage was and what release meant thus, they refrained from
mundane activities and became whole-hearted slaves of God. “God is
our property and we are His,” they believe, and by that they lived their
lives. All were perfect in the three features of ripe spirituality, namely
knowledge, detachment and love for God. They strictly avoided the
company of the world-minded. Roaming the countryside, each
unknown to the other, they spent a day here, a night there, simply to
benefit those who were willing to listen to them.
Poygai came one night to an open plain. A tempest brewed up
unexpectedly. Rain began pelting down; howling winds rushed across
the plain. To shelter himself, he found a narrow crevice close by, with
a small shutter.

Bhütam Alvar chance to come to that same place. Finding the crevice,
its shutter firmly closed, he cried out, “Anyone in? Open pray.”

“There is just enough room for one person to spend the night,” Poygai
replied from inside.

“If one can sleep there, two can sit there. Open pray.”

“Whatever said this,” Poygai thoght, “cannot be an ordinary man.” He

admitted him inside.

A third person came and knocked. It was Pey.

“No space can be spared for a third, for we have just enough room to
sit together,” the two sheltered Alvars chimed.

“If two can sit, three can stand,” rejoined Pey.

Poygai and Bhütam liked the answer; they allowd him in. The three of
them were now shoulder to shoulder in the dark crevice, hapilly
conversing about the Supreme Lord in perfect amity.

“Now I have My devotees!” God thought to Himself. “Let Me relish

their company. “At that moment, all three Alvars felt and invisible
body squeeze between them. It seemed to be a ghost.

“What shall we do?” Poygai broke out at last. He fumbled about for
his oil-lamp. Upon lighting it, the Supreme Charmer of hearts, Lord
Narayasa, Who cannot bear being separated from His devotes even for
a moment, appeared to them. The Alvars were dazzled by His majesty
and splendour. In great ecstasy, Poygai compose his Tiruvandadi, by
defining God as represented in the manifested universe. Bhütam sang
the second Tiruvandadi, which describes the Lord as Narayasa; Pey
sang the third, adding ‘Sri’ to Narayasa. These three hymns overflow
with knowledge of God, love for Him, and sight of Him. In each,
however, one of these three aspects predominates. These stages of love
of God are realizable to their fullest only in the spiritual world yet by
the Lord’s grace, the Alvars realized them all, even while tarrying on
Earth.

II. TirumaliSai-Alvar

According to some scriptures, TirumaliSai lived in Dvapara Yuga. He

is also known as Bhakti-sara, “the essence of love of God”.

His birth was quite unusual. Bhargava åsi, his father, was a very
advanced devotee of Lord Narayasa. After twelve months of
pregnancy his wife gave birth to a ‘child’ which was a formless lump
of flesh. Not knowing how to deal with such an aberration they
deposited the lump of flesh in the shade of a bamboo-clump.

However the shapeless being was nurtured by mother Earth. Gradually

the lump of flesh developed into a human form with all bodily
features, and started breathing. Then out of hunger, the baby gave his
first wail. But who could answer his desolate cry from such a remote
place? Thus Lord Viñsu personally came to save His devotee.
Touching the baby’s head, the Lord blessed him not be subject to
hunger nor thirst. For the first time the eyes of the baby openned just
so that he could see the wonderful form of the Lord. After a moment
the Lord vanished from his view. The baby again started crying, not
due to hunger, but rather out of separation from the Lord.

The cry fell on the ears of a woodsman. He brought the baby to his
house, and his wife who was childless, became very happy. Milk start
flowing from her breasts. But the child could not be fed by anything
from this world. His only food was the blissful grace of God. He
wouldn’t eat anything. But he still was misteriously growing very
healthy.

The news of the divine child spread and people from everywhere came
to see him. In particular, one childless couple brought some milk for
him. Understanding their intention, the child TirumaliSai drank a little.
Then, he gave them back the milk that remained and requested them to
drink it. Soon the couple gave birth to a son who was named Kani-
kannar. Kani-kannar would later on become TirumaliSai’s faithful
disciple and companion.

At the age of 7 years old, TirumaiSai was studying all scriptures and
systems of philosophy. While studying the Mahabharata, he came
across one verse which says: “The final conclusion is that Narayasa
alone is to be worshiped”. This statement caused such an intense
impression within him; that he decided to dedicate his whole self
towards this goal. He then sat down and engaged in deep meditation
for seven years.

During his meditation , Rudra appeared and requested him to ask for a
boon. “What can I gain from you?” asked the Alvar,”Can you grant me
mokña?” “No, only Narayasa can do it”, replied Lord Siva. “Can you
prolong for one day the life of a person who is destined to die?”,
asked the saint. “That depends on the person’s karma”, replied Siva.
Then TirumaiSai said: “So if you really want to give me a boon, then
help me to pass this thread thru the eye of this needle”. Then Rudra
became angry and opened his third eye. Fire issued from the eye,
erupting forth in streams and as if the whole world was going to be
consumed in flames. But nothing happened to the Alvar, and Lord
Siva left the place in shame.

One day the three Alvars Poygai, Pey and Bhütam in the course of
their pilgrimage they came near the location were TirumaliSai resided.
Here they had a vision of a spiritual sign, and they decided to follow it
towards the direction it came from. Eventually they found someone
sitting in meditation. They concluded that he was no other then
TirumaliSai. The Alvars said“Prabhu, are you well?” . Immediately
TirumaliSai replied: “Poygai! Pey! Bhütam! You are here! Are you
well?” They then greeted each other. This event brought tears of joy to
all of them. They began talks about God and His infinite glories and
drank the nectar from it. After some time the three Alvars left for
another pilgrimage.

TirumaliSai went to visit Lord Varada-raja, the famous Deity of

Kancipuram. Hearing that the Alvar was there, Kani-kannan, who was
born by the Alvar’s grace, came to see him. He fell at the feet of the
saint and surrendered to him.
At that time an old woman from the town also approached TirumaliSai
and resolved to engage herself inthe service of the saint. After some
time, he became very pleased with her service. Thus he requested her
to choose a boom from him. She requested him to return her youth.
And it so happened. Not only did she became young , but also
extremely beautiful. She was so beautiful that the King Pallava-Raya
fell in love with her and asked her to marry him.

As the years passed the King began to get old, but his partner remained
always youthfull. The King was struck with this miracle. She
explained to him that if he wanted the same boon he should approach
Kani-kannan, the Alvar’s disciple, who come everyday to beg alms in
the palace.

The King awaited Kani-kannan’s coming and then begged him to

invite his master to his palace. “Impossible, sir”, replied the
devotee,”my master doesn’t go to any man’s door nor he even cares
for kings like you”. The king then said “ as you are a beggar at my
door, so sing a verse in my praise”. Kani-kannan composed a verse
saying that the only objects worthy of praise is God and saintly people
and not a worldly man like him.

The king became extremely angry and banished both the master and
the disciple from his kingdom. Kani-kannan ran to his master and
related the incident. TirumaliSai said that he could not leave this place
and leave his Lord Varada-raja behind. Therefore, he decided to invite
the Deity to come with them. So he did, and the Lord agreed.

As the Lord, the Alvar and his disciple left King Pallava-raja’s
country, all the yogis, devas and others minor deities also departed
with them. The kingdom became godless, deprived of saintly people
and all prosperity. Realizing the circunstances, the king ran after them
and fell at the feet of TirumaliSai and Kani-kannan. Then the king
begged them to pardon him and asking them to come back to his
kingdom. The trio then returned to Kanci.

After some time, the Alvar decided to visit Lord Aravamudan at

Kumbhakonan. On the way he passed through different towns. As the
saint proceeded towards Kumbhakonan, he passed through one
particular town where the local Deity, while on the altar, turned His
face toward the direction that TirumaliSai was travelling, and
remained in that position. Arriving at his destination, the Alvar went at
once to see Lord Aravamudan. In ecstasy he composed two poems
called Tiruvandadi and Tirucchandaviruttam. In one of the verses he
says: “Let me see You rise and speak”. Aravamudan, Who is Lord
Viñsu lying down on Seña, then began rising up. Then the Alvar
immediately stopped the rising of the Lord by saying: “Oh My Lord,
pardon me. I pray to You to stretch Yourself on Your Seña couch as
before”. However the Deity remained in that position half lying and
half risen. Even to this day this Deity can be seen like that.

TirumaliSai remained immersed in yoga meditation for 2300 years,

subsisting solely on a little milk. He is said to have lived for 4700
years.

III. Nammalvar and Madhurakavi-Alvar

In Srimad-Bhagavatam, canto XI, chapter 5, verses 38-40, Narada

prophesizes the birth of holy saints in Kali Yuga along the banks of the
holy rivers of Draviòa-deSa (South India). These included the Alvars,
among which Nammalvar became the most prominent for his
devotional writings.

Nammalvar was born in a line of rulers in BC 3102, only 43 days after

the departure of Lord Kåñsa from this world. His parents had prayed at
the holy shrine of Tiruk-Kurungudi, desirous of a son. The Lord had,
by His own sweet will, decided to personally manifest as their child.
The tulasi garland around the Lord’s neck had fallen as a divine sign,
and the pujari had presented it to the couple.

From Nammalvar’s birth, he never cried, but simply smiled a heavenly

smile and remained wonderfully silent and severe. He would not suck
his mother’s milk either. Sixteen years passed but the child would
neither open his eyes nor his mouth. Inwardly, the boy mused to
himself: “Except for You, My Lord, I shall not see anyone. And what
is there for me to tell others, except for Your glories.”
Though distressed, the boy’s parents humbly resigned themselves to
the will of God. All the sacraments such as the upanayama were duly
administred to him by his brahmasa parents.

Madhurakavi Alvar had already taken his birth before the advent of
Nammalvar. He is said to be an incarnation of GaneSa who came to
herald the appearance of Nammalvar.

One day, Madhurakavi left his home and went on pilgrimage to the
north of India, seeking liberation. Upon returning, one night in the
southern direction he saw a strange supernatural light in the sky. He
understood this to be a divine sign. Sleeping during the day, he
followed it by might. After some days it led him to a tree, under which
Nammalvar sat in deep meditation.

Seated in padmasana, Nammalvar was as still as a statue.

Madhurakavi wondered whether he was alive. As a test, he dropped a
stone and the figure opened his eyes. But was he dumb? Madhurakavi
then put a question to him: “If in the womb of what is dead, a sutle
thing is born, what of what is dead, a subtle thing is born, what does it
eat and where does it abide?”

The saint answered, “It eats that; it abides there.”

Upon hearing this, Madhurakavi at once surrendered to the Alvar. He

had found his eternal guide who would lead him to salvation. At that
moment, Lord Viñsu also revealed Himsel to Nammalvar in all His
divinity, riding on Garuda with Lakñmi at His side. Overwhelmed
with ecstasy, the Alvar’s deep uncontrollable love for his Lord poured
from his heart in the form of four divine songs. These are
Tiruviruttam, TivaSiriyam, Periya-Tiruvandadi and Tiruvaymoli,
which are considered to be the very essence of the Rg, Yajur, Atharva
and Sama Vedas respectively.

Nammalvar had never tasted the so-called sweets of this earthly world.
From birth he had always relished Lord Kåñsa as his only food, as his
only drink, as his only means of confort.

In the Tiruvaymoli he clearly formulated the essentially five-fold Truth

of the Vedas and the sublime doctrine of Trust, Faith and Grace as
taught in the holy Dvaya Mantra, the essence of the Vedas. He showed
to the world, by precept as well as by practice the nature of love of
God, which he ascertained to be three-fold.

Many miracles occurred by his presence. He resided on the southern

bank of the Tamraparni River, while one yogi lived on the northern
bank. This yog owned a dog which would daily cross the river at about
midday and roam the streets of holy Tirunagani. Once the dog did not
return on time. The yogi walked down to the river-side to ascertain the
cause. Mid-way across the river , he could see the dog swimming
towards him. Suddenly, to his horror, a huge flood-wave came down
upon the animal and drowned it. The yogi could see the dead dog
floating dowatream; yet as he gazed, the dog’s head burst open and its
soul emerged, and like a shooting star flew heavenwards. On that same
day the dog had eaten the remnants of Nammalvar.

When Nammalvar left this world for the spiritual kingdon, his first
disciple constructed temples and installed Deities to commemorate his
spiritual master. He also established, on a royal scale, daily, monthly
and annual ceremonies in memory of Nammalvar’s glory and his
works. At the same time, he proclaimed far and wide the eternal truths
embodied in the four Draviòa Vedas.

During this time, no one could be declared a poet without having first
passed before a council of three-hundred of the King’s pasòitas. Some
of these erudite pasòitas came to hear Nammalvar’s growing fame.
They challenged Madhurakavi to defend his master before the council.
The latter agreed and soundly defeated them all, firmly establishing
Nammalvar as a great personality and popularizing his teachings. Of
the many spiritual truths which he had revealed, the fundamental truth,
or the basis, is the concept that God is one.

IV. KulaSekhara Alvar

KulaSekhara Alvar was a royal saint and the crown- gem in the lineage
of the rulers of Tranvacore. In the modern times, Travancore is known
as Trivandrum, Kerala. By tradition, the kings of Travancore do not
own the kingdom. The actual owner of the kingdom is Sri Ananta
Padmanabha, Lord GarbhodakaSayi Viñsu, the main Deity of
Trivandrum. The king is simply God’s vassal and minister. Invariably
twice a day the king used to go before the Deity to present a report of
his daily administration of the country. Such I the ancient line of the
vedic kings among whom KulaSekhara appeared.

King KulaSekhara was born in Kali 27. His father, For long time King
Dådha-vrata was childless. And after intent worship and prayers, Lord
Narayasa sent him a saintly son. His son, KulaSekhara-Alvar, is
recognized to be the incarnation of the Kaustubha gem of Lord Viñsu.

As a kñatriya of great prowess, he conquered all his enemies and

neighbouring kingdoms in all directions. His internal administration
was characterized by virtue, justice, peace and happiness. He was
endowed with many exalted material qualities, however he was devoid
of virtues which leads to liberation. In fact, he was worldly wise, but
spiritually blind.

But KulaSekhara was to become a saint and savior for uplifting

humanity. He was transformed by God’s grace, which started
operating through him. The Lord commanded Viñvaksena to
administer to the King the five-fold sacraments called Panca-saàskara.
Thus his vision of the world and of himself changed. He became
dettached from the world and the synptoms of prema-bhakti
manifested within him.

He invited many wise men to his capital and he engaged in hearing

and reciting from all Sastras. This inspired him to compose his master
piece, Mukunda-mala-stotra, by extracting the nectar from all
scriptures.

His worshipable God was Lord Ramacandra, and therefore he selected

the Ramayana for daily recitation.One day there came the passage
where Lord Rama fought alone against 14.000 rakñasas. Upon hearing
this, King KulaSekhara, out of devotional ecstasis, became mad with
worry thinking that Lord Rama was fighting alone. Then he
commanded his army to immediately proceed with him to help Lord
Ramacandra. To save the king from this predicament, the ministers
expeditiously dispatched a secret army to approach from the other
direction and inform the King that Lord Rama, single handed, had
already killed all the rakñasas. Upon hearing this, the king’s joy was
inexpressible.

The daily recitation of the Ramayana went on as usual. Every

important event of Lord Ramacandra’ lila was celebrated with a great
festival. The speaker purposefully avoided some distressfull passages
in the text which would disturb the mood of the king. One day,
however, the oficial speaker could not attend the daily recitation and
thus sent his son. The new speaker, unaware about the mood of the
King, read the passage of Ravana’s kidnapping of Sita-devi. At once
the King’s emotions blazed like fire. His wrath rouse to an
uncontrollable state. He commanded his complete army to follow him
in order to save mother Sita. At this time, the ministers could not do
anything because the king had mobilized all his army ultimately. King
KulaSekhara and his army reached the seashore along the
southernmost part of India, which faced Ravana’s kingdon, the island
of Sri Lanka. Although hundreds of miles of ocean separated the
continent to the island, King KulaSekhara, in trance, entered into the
ocean along with his army in order to try to cross over it. He was neck
deep in the see when Lord Ramacandra and Sita-devi came to save
him and ensured that everything was under control.

After this episode the ministers were especulating as to the cause for
this God-intoxicated behavior of the king. The only reason the
ministers could ascertain was his association with the pure devotees
the king had invited to live in his palace. These pure vaiñsavas had
free access to any part of the palace.

So the ministers conspired against these vaiñsavas. Some jewellery

was stolen from the King’s Deities and the vaiñsavas were accused of
the theft.

But King KulaSekhara’s reaction was free from any suspicion: “No!
Never! The lovers of God are incapable of stealing. It’s impossible that
even a slight notion of vice can enter into their thought, what to speack
of them acting improperly. I can prove my word. Let a venomous
cobra be placed into a vessel and I shall put my hand into it.” As soon
said as done. “If they are innocent nothing will happen. But if they are
guilty let it bite me and kill me”.
The ministers were thus put into shame. They confessed their trick and
begged for the King’s pardon. The King pardoned them.

For a long time King KulaSekhara had the desire to give up his
kingdom and go to Sri Rangam and simply engage in devotional
service unto the Lord. This desire eventually became unbearable.
Hence he entrusted the kingdom to his son Dådha Vrata and left for
RangakSetra. There he experienced always increasing devotional
emotions and composed the poem Perumal Tirumozhi. Perumal is a
title with which KulaSekhara-Alvar is distinguished, by feeling sorrow
when God is in sorrow and happiness when God is happy.

V. Peryi - Alvar

Peryi-Alvar, also known as Viñsu Chittar, was born in a high line of

brahmasas in Sri Villiputur, in the year Kali 16. From early childhood
he intuitively was a pure devotee of Lord Viñsu.

When meditating on the pastimes of Sri Kåñsa, he was inspired by

Sudama, the mala-kara, who offered garlands and worshiped Kåñsa
and Balarama when They entered Mathura, on this way to the arena of
Kaàsa. The Alvar then resolved to devote himself to supplying
flowers for the daily worship of Lord Viñsu in His arca form of Vata-
sayin in his town, Sri Villiputur.

At that time king Vallabhadeva of Madhurai, met a brahmasa who

spoke a few words to him and awoke the desire for attainning mokña.
After that, the king was very eager to know the genuine process of
self-realization. He consulted his minister who suggested he summon a
council of the wisest men in the kingdom. Each one would give his
opinion on the subject.

Meanwhile, in Sri Villiputur, the Alvar had a wonderful dream. His

beloved Deity Sri Vata-sayin appeared before him and commanded
him to attend the king’s court. “What?’, the astonished Alvar
exclaimed. “Look at my hands! They are scarred from constant
labour in the garden. I am poor and illiterate and yet You want me to
go and speak to the king in the midst of great scholars!”.

The Lord softly replied: “Do not fear. Simply do as I say and I will
arrange everything.”

Arriving in Madhurai, he was welcomed by the king’s minister and

invited to speak before the council. The Alvar become like Dhruva,
who was touched by the transcendental conch of Lord Viñsu and
empowered to utter wonderful prayers. Quoting many evidences from
the Sastras he proved that one who aspires for liberation should
meditate upon and surrender unto the lotus feet of Lord Viñsu, Who
alone can grant mukti. In fact he simply opened his mouth and the
Lord spoke through him.

Peryi-Alvar’s discourse was unparalleled and the glories of devotional

service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead was established
definitively, leaving no room for impersonal concept. No one dared
even breathe a word in protest.

The king and all his ministers were very much enlivened and began to
glorify the Alvar, saying: “He has revealed to mankind the light that
shines on the very summit of the Vedanta.” They led him through the
streets of the capital in a grand procession.

As parents like to witness the glory of their son, so the Lord likes to
witness the glories of His devotees. Then Lord Viñsu , along with His
entourage, descended personally to that spot to see His devotee being
glorified. Upon beholding His beloved Lord, Peryi-Alvar was filled
with ecstatic joy. However, he never allowed his heart to swell with
pride.

The Alvar started praying: “Here is my God! That Supreme Person

Who is so worthy of the adoration of even the most exalted demigods.
At this very moment I am not feeling ecstatic love for You love that
makes me forget myself and strikes me down senseless. I am feeling
fear instead. Fear for Your safety in this unworthy place. What moves
me now is not the love of a belover, but the protective love a mother
feels for her child.”

Then Peryi-Alvar composed a devotional poem called Tiruppallandu.

After blessing the king, Peryi-Alvar returned home to his devotional
service as gardener of Sri Vata-sayin. He wrote many devotional
poems, such as Tirumozhi, which were manifestation of his love for
the Lord in the mood of separation. Such intense feelings of separation
burned his heart so much, causing him to leave this world.

VI. Asòal-Alvar

Asòal is the only woman among the twelve Alvars. Peryi-Alvar was
digging his garden one day when he discovered a child covered in
earth, just as King Janaka had found Sitadevi. He named her Asòal.
The year was Kali 97.

Peryi-Alvar’s sole occupation was daily to present a flower garland to

his deity Sri Vata-Sayin. As time passed, Asòal blossomed into an
attractive maiden. In her father’s absence, she would take up the
garland he had intended for the Lord and wear it in her hair. Placing
herself before a mirror, she would admire herself for hour, saying,
“Don’t I match Him (God) in beauty?” When her father discovered
this he chastized her severely for her offence and decided not to offer
the garland to the deity that day.

At night Peryi-Alvar dreamt of Vata-Sayin who questioned him why

he had failed to bring his daily garland. The Alvara explained the
reson.

“Desecration?” the Lord replied, “You mean consecration, rather. We

consider your fragrant garlands to smell even sweeter after your
daughter has worn them. We want no others, but those.” Peryi-Alvar
woke up in amazement.

As Asòal grew, her love for God also grew. It became so furious in
intensity it could no longer be kept in secret. Her father remained very
anxious. Asòal was in the full bloom of youth and yearned more and
more for a husband with divine nature.One day her father said to her,
“Pardon my suggestion, but surely you should marry a God. But Who
among Them?” Asòal asked her father to describe the different
manifestations of the Lord. At this he began to name and glorify each
of the 108 main deities of Lord Viñsu. Upon hearing the name of Sri
Ranganatha her heart at once melted, revealing Who was holding her
heart captive.

Peryi-Alvar was perplex. That night, however, Sri Ranganatha

appeared in his dream and announced He would propose for his
daughter’s hand and heart Himself. In Sri Rangan the Lord manifested
His desire to the head priest, commanding him to journey to Sri
Viliputtur and bring His fiancee to Him. The priest arranged for Asòal
to be brough over great pomp and made very opulent preparations for
the wedding ceremony. This was conducted, and Asòal embraced her
Lord and, before the eyes of everyone present, merged into the body of
Lord Ranganatha.

Sri Asòal is today worshipped in her arca-vigraha in numerous

temples of Viñsu in South India. The poetry she has written about her
passionate feelings for the Lord remains as well.

VII. Tosòaraòippoòi-Alvar

Tosòaraòippoòi was born in a South Indian brahmasa family in the

year Kali 288. He was named Vipra-Narayasa. Later he became known
as Tosòiraòippoòi-Alvar, which means ‘the foot-dust of the slaves of
the Lord’.

By nature Vipra-Narayasa was a saint, completely detached from this

world. As a result he remained free from natural entanglements such as
marriage. Having been blessed by Lord Ranganatha, he resolved to
devote his life to cultivating and suppling tulasi leaves for the Lord’s
pleasure.

One day a very captivating but mundane woman named Deva-devi,

who was a frequent visitor to the court of King Chola, passed through
the beautiful garden of Vipra-Narayasa and decided to stop and rest for
some time. She noticed how Vipra-Narayasa, his mind being fully
absorbed in his service and on thoughts of his Deity, did not pay her
the slightest attention although she was very close to him.

Deva-devi’s sister had told her he was a devotee, a saint, and for fun
she had made a wager: “If you are able to deviate his heart from God
to you, I will become your slave for six months”. Deva-devi had
accepted. Approaching Vipra-Narayasa and falling at his feets she told
him destiny had made her a prostitute but that she now repented for
her sinful life. Begging for shelter at his feet she offered to assist him
with any menial service in his garden. Out of innocence, Vipra-
Narayasa consented.

Deva-devi was determined. For six months she worked with complete
dedication and devotion. Then one day during the rainy season, she
was out gardening in the rain, completely wet and shivering. Vipra-
Nåayasa felt sorry for her and called her into his cottage. This was the
moment for which she had been wait for so long. Taking advantage of
the situation, she suggest she would massage his weary limbs. Again a
victim of his innocence, Vipra-narayasa allowed her to do so.

Deva-devi was a mistress of the art of seduction. She easily captured

the brahmasa’s heart so he could no longer concentrate his mind in his
Deity. Having won the wager, there was no reason for Deva-devi to
remain in that place any longer and she returned to her house. Mad
with lust, Vipra-Narayasa ran after her, sat outside her front door and
submitted himself to all kinds of injuries and indignities.

One day, Lord Ranganatha and His consort Sri passed by that street in
a procession. When Lakñmi-devi saw Vipra-Narayasa in that condition
She asked Her Lord what had happened to his faithful and dedicated
servant. After Lord Rannganatha narrated the story, Sri demanded that
He help Vipra-Narayas and once again engage him in His sevice. But
the Lord simply smiled and said He had a plan.

That same day someone knocked at Deva-devi’s door, claiming to be

Vipra-Narayasa’s servant. He delivered a golden cup to her which she
happily received. The following morning Sri Ranganatha’s pujari
discovered that the Lord’s golden cup was missing from the altar. The
king immediately had the pujari and other attendants arrested.
One of Deva-devi’s maids, whose lover was one of attendants, had
witness the whole scene in the house of her mistress. She at once
informed the king that Vipra-Narayasa had given the cup to Deva-devi
and that it now lay hidden under the pillow.

The cup was retrieved and Vipra-Narayasa and Deva-devi were

brough before the king. They naturally denied and participation in the
theft, but on the weight of the evidence against them, Deva-devi was
fined and Vipra-Narayasa was detained for further investigation.

Once again Lakñmi intervened, requesting Her Lord to stop playing

with His devotee.

That night Lord Ranganatha appeared to the king in a dream and said
to him:

“Dear king, know My servant Vipra-Narayasa to be innocent, so far as

his present life is concerned; but in past lives he has committed acts
for which he must now pay retribution. This is why I have devised a
measure which allows ends of justice to be satisfied. He has been
made to suffer, though only slightly.”

The next morning the king had Vipra-Narayasa release and Deva-
devi’s money returned to her. Vipra-Narayasa was saved by the special
grace of His Lord. Old recollections of his worshippable Deity now
flooded his mind and he regained his saintly nature. He came to value
the danger of women’s assocation. Thinking of how to purify himself
of his sin, he discovered the only remedy was to drink the water which
had washed the lotus feet of the vaiñsavas. From this he received the
name Tosòaraòippoòi, and he served Lord Ranganatha until his final
breath.

VIII. Tiruppan-Alvar

Tiruppan-Alvar appeared in a candala family in the year Kali 342, in

Tamil Nadu, South India. Actually, he was not born in the normal way
he was found in a paddy field. The stalks of green and yellow paddy
around him were glowing at that time.

Due to belonging a low class family, he was not allowed to dwell with
people from higher castes. In spite of that, in the childhood his parents
protected him from eating indiscriminated food and other things which
could pollute him. He was fed pure cow’s milk.

Since his childhood, Tiruppan had no attraction for things of this

world. His natural tendencies were directed towards God. He used to
absorbe himself for hours singing songs in glorification of the Lord.
He would close his eyes and become utterly senseless and oblivious to
the external world. He would enjoy visions of God and experiencing
His closeness.

Following the traditions of his family and his caste, Tiruppan adopted
the profession of musician, a lyre-player.

One day, Tiruppan was seated on the banks of the Kaveri, in Sri
Rangam, near the temple of Lord Ranganatha. He was immersed in
such deep meditation on the Lord that he looked like a lifeless statue.
At that time, the head pujari of Lord Ranganatha, Loka Saranga,
happen to come to the river side to fetch water from the river for the
daily abhisheka of the Deities. Tiruppan was seated on the path where
the pujaris would pass carring vessels full of water. Loka Saranga
demanded that he move from there, but Tiruppan did not respond to
his request. He was in devotional trance and unaware of the situation.
Being a brahmasa, Loka Saranga thought that this candala was
provoking him with indiference, and therefore became very upset. He
grabed a pebble and flung it at him. It hit him in the face and drew
blood.

Tiruppan came ouy from his trance, opened his eyes and at seeing the
enraged brahmasa at once realized the whole situation. He then
immediately moved away from the place expressing his grief and
repentance at the offense which he had commited, though unwittingly.

Back at temple, Loka Saranga felt something strange. Normally Lord

Ranganatha used to reciprocate with the service of his faithfull devotee
but this time was different. The countenance of the Lord was not as
blissful as usual, and the brahmasa had the clear impression that his
sevice was not being accepted by the Lord. At the same time he was
mentaly regretting the incident. He was morose, feeling remorse and
anguish.

While lamenting, Lord Ranganatha along with His eternal consort

appeared to him and said: “How dare you hurt My faithful Tiruppan?
We are sorely offended by you.” Then Sri inquired from the Lord why
He delayed bringing Tiruppan nearer to Him. The Lord then said: “I
have often tried to, but as I advance he receeds, because he is sensitive
of his humble birth and he thinks that any contact with Me would
contaminate My nature. The time has come for settling the matter, and
you will have your wish soon fulfilled.” So the Lord spoke to Loka
Saranga: “You shouldn’t think Tiruppan a low person he is My very
soul and My intimate friend. I want you to go to him and, with all
reverence and humility, lift him up upon your shoulders and
triumphally enter Our shrine. Let the world witnesses this
spectacle.This is My command.”

Loka Saranga immediately went to the spot and found Tiruppan

absorbed in meditation. He fell at his feets and begged forgiveness for
injuries both physical and moral. Then he submitted the wish of Lord
Ranganatha.

The Alvar retreated to a distance and said: “Don’t touch me. I’m low
born and it’s inadmissible for me to step in the Lord Ranganatha’s
land.” “But sir”, said Loka Saranga, “Don’t fear. I will carry you on
my shoulders. This is the desire of the Lord. Further resistance will be
desobedience.” Then Tiruppan gave up: “As the Lord wishes”, he said.

Loka Saranga without delay carried the Tiruppan into the Lord’s
shrine. When he was about to deposit the Alvar in one of the holy
yards of the temple, the Lord along with all His entourage, appeared
before him. His devotional ecstasy then surpassed all limits and he
starded praising the Lord with a song Amalam-Adipiran, he composed
at that time.

While gazing and staring in astonishment, Tiruppan Alvar tarried not

on the Earth to see any other sight, but melted and passed int the
Lord’s substance, in his 50th year of age.
IX. Tirumangai-Alvar

Sri Tirumangai is the last of the Alvars of the Sri Sampradaya. He was
born in Kali 397 in a Sudra class family. His name at birth was Nila
(blue) because of Lord Kåñsa’s color. He is said to be the incarnation
of the bow called Sarnga.

His father was the military commander in the army of King Chola.
Nila learnt from him the use of different weapons and other military
arts. Soon he became distinguished for his martial qualities and for his
conquests of kings who were in opposition to the supremacy of King
Chola.

Being unmarried, he use to behave like a libertine. He was what is

known as ‘a gratifier of the senses’. He was also`known by the name
Kalian.

During this period of his life, a group of very young apsaras from
Svarga-loka descended onto the kingdom. There they found a
wonderful place with a lake containing many lotus flowers. One of the
apsaras was attentively engaged in pluking flowers when the other
apsaras departed living her behind. Verily she did not know what to
do. By chance, a vaiñsava physician appeared on the site. Out of
curiosity he asked her what such a lovely girl was doing alone in such
a remote place. After hearing her story, the vaiñsava brought her to his
house and treated her as she were his own daughter. She was named
Kumuda-Valli, because the lotus flowers were the cause of her being
left behind. She grew up and bloomed into a beautiful maiden. Hence,
the parents were worried because they were unable to find a suitable
match in marriage for her.

In the meanwhile, one of Kalyan’s spies notice this girl of such

exquisite beauty and reported back to Kalyan; how she would be the
perfect wife for him. He became excited and without delay he rushed
to Kumuda-Valli’s house. As soon as he saw her, his heart burnt with
love and passion. Then Kalyan approached to her parents and
requested her hand in marriage. They replied that the decision would
be exclusively hers.
Kumuda-Valli vehemently denied to marry a non-vaiñsava man, who
was not initiated with the five-fold sacraments. However Kalyan was
determined to get her hand in marriage by any means.

He at once went to the presiding Deity of the kingdom, Sri Nambi, and
prayed fervently that He bestow him the requisite sacraments which
his beloved lady had demanded. He prayed with such faith that the
Deity personally administred the cakra and the conch imprinted on his
arms , along with twelve marks of tilak over his body. He then rushed
back to Kamuda-Valli who said: “There is another condition. You
have to sumptously feed 1000 vaiñsavas daily and eat only their
remnants after sipping the holy water obtained from washing their
feet.”

Kalyan out of love for Kamud-Valli accepted this condition, and thus
they got married.

He strictly followed his promise. All money in his possession was

used for a daily banquet. Hoever, after a couple of months had passed
he was out of money. He even spent the taxes he was to pay the king.
After having a confrontation with the king, Kalyan was finally arrested
and put in the king’s prison in Kanci. There Lord Varada-raja appeared
to him in a dream and revealed to him a treasure hidden on the bank of
the Vegavatti river. Kalyan told the king about the dream and was
alowed to go there accompanied by palace guards. He indeed found
the treasure. He paid the amount owed to the king and still had enough
money to continue feeding the vaiñsavas. The Lord saved His devotee
in the same way that He saved Draupadi. His promise to his wife was
kept.

However, after some time, he again ran out of money. At that time he
had to take to robbery by plundering travellers on the road. Such
activity is morally perverse, but the fact is that God was pleased by
Kalyan’s sincerity and once more acted in his favor. By feeding the
vaiñsavas and taking their remmanents, Kalyan was pleasing the Lord.

While Kalyan and his gang were waiting for their next victim, the
Lord appeared on the road in the disguise of a brahmasa and his
wedding procession; accompanied by His wife and entourage. The
brahmasa was carrying a bundle full of priceless jewelry. Kalyan
directed the attack and without difficulty took all the belongings of the
group. When the dacoits tried to lift all the product of the robbery, they
could not even move it one inch. The bundle was stuck to the ground
as if by magic. Kalyan then said: “Who are you?You look like a
wizard.” The Lord in disguise replied: “I will teach you a mantra by
which you will be able to move the bundle. Now you come here and
bend your head and put your ear near my mouth.” “What?” vociferated
the chief of the dacoits, “Either you give me the mantra now or I will
cut your head off with my sword.” “Come on...”, said the Lord, “don’t
be nervous”. Then the brahmasa asked Kalyan to repeat the eight
syllable mantra: om namo narayasaya. Kalyan tested the mantra and to
the surprise of all the bundle could be lifted. He was about to leave
when the Lord said to him: “I have some more to give you.” Kalyan
curiously replied “What more?.” The Lord then explained the spiritual
potency of the mantra.

Kalian was struck with wonder. Then the ‘brahmasa’ revealed Himself
as Lord Narayasa with His eternal consort, mounted in Garuda.

Kalyan immedately composed six songs glorifying the Lord. Thus he

became the Tirumangai Alvar.From this point on his life transformed
radically. His wild nature was now used integrally in the sevice of
God. Accordingly, that many saintly qualities manifested in his heart.

After this incident he went on pilgrimage in the North Haridwar,

Badrinath, NaimiSarasya, etc. He gained respect and was praised by
all.

The Alvar came to visit Lord Ranganatha in Sri Rangam. There he

compose many songs glorifying the Deity. The Deity appeared to him
and requested him to stay in the temple and expand the constructed
area of the temple. Of course, Tirumangai-Alvar accepted the service
but now he needed a large ammount of money for doing that. To
obtain the money, Tirumangai involved himself in a very exciting
series of adventures.

Tirumangai’s brother-in-law told him of a temple that possessed a

valuable golden murti of Buddha. They planned to steal it. But the
altar was protected by an intricate mechanical system which made it
impossible to enter and touch the Deity. The only person who knew
the secret was the architect who had constructed it. They found that the
man lived on an island in the Bay of Bengal. Arriving on the island
they indirectly approached the architect. Taking advantage of his
slyness, the group obtained the secret of the altar’s protecting scheme.
Returning to the temple they were able to take the murti off. However
his brother-in-law happened to fall into a trap. He then said to
Tirumangai: “You have to flee from here at once. But don’t leave me
here alive. Please cut my head off. It would be better”. And
Tirumangai did so.

Leaving that place, the group carried the murti as it were a dead body
in a funeral, with the head of the Alvar’s brother-in-law on the top.

This time Sri LakSmi-devi interfered and requesed the Lord to save
His devotee. Lord Viñsu sent Garuda with the mission to rescue the
body, join it with the head and give him life.

Returning to Sri Rangam Tirumangai melted the murti and payed for
the construction. Again he had more problems when the money was
exausted, he still had to pay a substantial amount in wages to the
workers. “What to do?”, thought the Alvar. Therefore he put all the
worker on a boat used for crossing the river. Half way across the river
he made the boat sink and the workers died. Again there was more
problems. Now the wives, children and relatives of the workers were
demanding compensation. Again, “What to do now?”, thought the
Alvar. Then a new miracle happened. The workers who had died
appeared before their families and requested them not to struggle for
money, because now, they are in the heaven and are better them
before.
THE EXAMPLE OF THE ROPE AND THE SNAKE ( explained by Satyanarayana dasa)

(transcribed from. . S.B. Class given in Vrndavana - Kartika of 93)

... in the last verse and now in this verse Prthu Maharaja starts speaking about devotional
service although it is mixed with knowledge.

These two verses can be compared as jnana-misra-bhakti. And in the next two verses he will
speak about pure devotional service. Prthu Maharaja is explaining the all strata beginning from
the original state of material conditioning and raising to the point of what the sadhaka has to
do. Then, how he devolops knowledge and the ultimate conclusion is in devotional service to
the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Because the Kumaras are coming from the jnana-marga, they have spoken much about jnana
or knowledge which involves asakti, attachment to the Lord which means that one has to detach
from the material world. This verse and the previous ones they have clearly spoken that one
should not become attached to the material world but rather one should understand that this
material world is also situated in the Lord and in this way one comes to the vasudeva
consciousness (vasudeva sarvam iti sa-mahatma su-durlabhah). This is how one may use the
path of jnana to attain devotional service. But the ultimate conclusion is in devotional service.

As it was said previously, attachment to this material world is the cause of one's destruction.
When the senses become attracted to this material world or material sense objects, the
intelligence is lost. Just as the water is sucked away by the kusa grass that is growing around
the lake, the senses suck away the intelligence of the living entity. This is one type of fall-down
as Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita buddhi-nasat pranasyati; "intelligence is lost" means that the
intelligence to differentiate between matter and spirit is lost. Otherwise materialistic people are
also very intelligent in performing their material activities.

But there is a bigger danger than that - it is the misundestanding of one self as the ultimate
reality. This is the greatest obstacle in the path of devotional service much worst than falling
down into the pull of material sense gratification. This is, according to Srila Prabhupada, like
'commiting spiritual suicide', because his own 'self' is completely lost. He cannot again come to
the path of devotional service, because his concept becomes totally changed. Therefore the
vaisnavas always speak very strongly against this concept of 'oneness' with the Supreme Lord.
The four Kumaras explained that there is four paths: dharma, kama. artha, moksa. Out of those,
moksa is the supreme. Now they want to clarify that this path of liberation is not 'oneness' with
the Lord. This liberation is dealing with service to the Lord, not the sahujya-mukti.

Raghunatha dasa Goswami says in his "Mana-siksah" that this sahujya-mukti it is like a tigress
which devours everything. This path of liberation will completely devours the soul whereas the
material sense gratification only devours the intelligence. This is because in that state one thinks
that he has no existence, he is 'one' with the Supreme. One's personality is completely lost. Then
there is no question of devotional service after that.

Therefore Srila Prabhupada says that this argument which is used by the impersonalists should
not be misunderstood because this same argument is also found in the scriptures. Mostly of the
arguments that the impersonalists use, they are actually found in the scriptures but they twist the
meaning and they bewilder the simple people. They used such highly complicated words that the
common man cannot understand what is the real significance of the example. There is a saying
in english that 'if you don't understand something then just beleive it'. They don't understand so
they think it must be true.

Now we will attempt to explain what is this vivarta-vada and what is this example of the rope
and the snake so popular among impersonalists.

Then impersonalists they have these three terms: sat, asat and mithya. Sat means 'real' ,
which always exists in past, present and future. There will never be time when it will not exist.

Asat means which is 'unreal', it never existes. Like somebody saying, "I saw a rat with a
trunk". The rat doesn't have a trunk and will never have a trunk. This is called 'asat', which will
never exist.

Then there is 'mithya' that they explain that is neither real nor unreal. Mithya should not be
confused with 'false'. The word used also is 'unexplicable'. One cannot explain what is it. This
example of snake and rope explains these three things. They say that it is like if there is a rope
and you see it in the darkeness, (not complet darkness otherwise one could not see it) you may
think that maybe it is a snake. And automatically you become terrified. But when you put on a
torchlight you realize that actually there is no snake, it is only a rope.

They say that this snake that it is perceived when there is improper light, this is not real snake,
because if it was real it should exist even when one put the light on it. And it is not unreal, it
means it is not that it not exists, because if it is completely non-existent then one do not fear it,
one will not perceive it when there is darkness. Therefore the impersonalists say that this
appearance of snake at that time, is the work of maya. This snake manifestation is called mithya
and it comes into existence by the mercy of maya. Maya performs two activities: first it covers
the intelligence and then supplies the object for the intelligence. If the knowledge is covered that
is not sufficient; a new object has to be given to replace the previous object. Just like a magician,
he may throw a stone in the sky and when the stone is falling it turns into coins. There are two
things he does: firstly he covers the stone and secondly he produces the coins in the place of the
stone. Similarly Maya is divided in two sections: one covers the rope and the other gives rise to
the snake.

And that snake is vivarta, which means an illusory transformation, or an illusory appearance of
the object. For the impersonalists illusion doesn't mean false, they called it mithya. Then the
snake is the vivarta of the rope.

These are the examples they give to understand. Brahman is sat (like the rope) and this universe is
mithya, which is like the vivarta of Brahman. This is the philosophy of vivarta-vada often refered
as Mayavadi because this vivarta is hapenning due to Maya. This is only a vivarta, this is not
reality is not Brahman. Therefore their philosophy is 'brahman satyam, jagat mithya, jiva-
brahmeva naparah' (?) which means that Brahman is satyam (real) and jagat is mithya (illusory,
neither real nor unreal). Because if it is real must exist even in Brahman and if it is unreal we
shoul not perceive it now. Thus they say that the jiva is only Brahman not different from it. This
is how they propound their philosophy and then they use the word adhyasa which means
super-imposition. This snake of vivarta is super-imposed unto the rope by Maya. They say that
this material world is adhyasa or super-imposition unto Brahman and this happens by the work of
Maya.

Therefore as we put some light on the snake then one realizes the rope. Light means
knowledge. In the same way if we understand knowledge from the sruti, from the statements of
the Vedas such as "tattvamasi" (I am that), "aham brahmasmi" (I am Brahman) and we meditate
upon this then this athyasa or super-imposition will be removed because when there is
knowledge, this vivarta cannot exist. The illusion of something is removed when one gets
knowledge of the basis of that illusion on which the illusion is existing. Because this material
world is appearing illusory in Brahman, if one knows Brahman then this illusion will disappear,
we will not see it.

The fallacy in this example is that there are no such things as three categories. There are not
sat, asat and mithya, there are only two categories: there is only sat and asat. There is no such
thing as neither real nor unreal (mithya). No one perceives it, therefore it cannot be explained.
Although they say that this illusion is inexplicable but the thing is, this does not exist therefore
this is asat.

What is the explanation for one's perception of the snake in the rope? The person who is
perceiving the snake in the rope has experienced the snake before, either by hearing about or
seeing in photograph or movie, or actually having seen a real snake. He has an experience of
snake. And because snake is the cause of death which is the greatest fear for the living being, this
knowledge is very strongly situated in the mind. Of the four activities, eating, mating, sleeping
and fearing, this last one is the more prominent. This fear of death is naturally situated and
therefore those objects that give us fear are very strongly situated in our samskaras or impressions
in the heart. So when he sees the rope which has some similarity to the snake, immediatly the
impression of the snake become prominent in the mind and that is super-imposed on the rope and
he starts thinking 'it is a snake'. He is actually neither seeing the rope nor the snake because
there is improper light. He just puts on his own experience unto the rope and he starts to beleive
that it is a snake and becomes fearful. The super-imposition is actually not a creation of maya, it
comes from his own mind and the test is if the person has not experienced a snake in his life,
either by hearing or seeing, he will not think that this rope is a snake. Why maya is not getting a
snake for him? For example if there is a small child, if he sees this rope in a little darkness, he
will not fear it, he will even catch it because he does not know what snake means, he is not afraid
of it. And such baby is not Brahman realized. They say when one is Brahman realized maya
cannot create any illusion for him out of shyness. Darkness cannot come in front of light. But
the fact is, if the person who is ignorant and who is also bound in the three modes of material
nature why is he not also perceiving snake in this rope?

Basically this super-imposition is coming from one's own mind and thus these examples when
they are given, the purpose beyond them is to become free from the attachment to this material
world.

In the last three verses Prthu Maharaja was speaking with the Kumaras about detachment.
They said that everything in this material world is blessed to be destroyed by time. So one
should not become attached and engrossed, one should realize that one is transcendental to these
things. So this meditation on the last verse and this verse is for this understanding that 'I am not
this body'. But just as the snake is only experienced when I am super-imposing in, if there is no
real snake, then cannot be an experience of snake and there cannot be an illusion. Illusion cannot
be created. So, just as the rope is real, the snake is also real although the real snake is not present
in that place, it is present in his samskaras, in the impressions within his mind. And the
impressions become active by similarity or by meditation. Therefore Madvacarya said 'brahman
satyam, jagat satyam' , jagat is also satyam because it is also energy of the Lord.
 Our philosophy is that this jagat is a manifestation of the Lord's external potency and because
the Lord is real, His energy cannot be unreal or illusory. But this is a different type of energy
from the internal energy. This external energy goes through changes or transformations but it is
also eternal. This is called the changing reality. The Vaikuntha planets are not undergoing the
transformations of creation and destruction. Otherwise energy cannot be created or destroyed.
And because this is also an energy that they also accept, otherwise it is impossible to explain the
creation. If the energy is there how the energy will be destroyed? Actually it is not destroyed but
transformed into a different realm(?) of energy.

This example of the rope and the snake is just there to help us to understand the ephemerial
nature of this material world. And because this world is temporary, everything is in transition one
cannot derive real happiness from it. The Kumaras are recommending that one should surrender
to the Lord. And this Lord is not the same as the jiva. Why? Because it is said here that the Lord is
liberated, He is pure and He is free from the material world. He never comes under illusion.

The living entity fall under the illusion and when he is under such illusion one cannot say that
he is mukta, liberated. If he would be mukta there would be no need to give him any
instructions. This 'eternal liberated' can only be applied to the Supreme Lord. The Lord is
beyond the reactions of karma. He is not under the influence of Maya. Only the living entities
under the influence of Maya have to suffer the reactions of their karma. When the living entity
becomes free from maya then automatically he becomes free from the reactions of his karma.

The impersonalists say that there is no meaning that one should surrender. This verse
explains very nicely the real purport of this example of the rope and the snake. When one
becomes free from attachment to this material world, then one becomes qualified to perform
pure devotional service.

Another way of analysing these things is that, they have spoken from Texts 18 to 40 (about
23 verses) and one should study what they said in the beginning and what they have just said in
the concluding verses. In the beginning verses, when they were congratulating Prthu Maharaja
they said "my dear King you are very fortunate because you have a great attachment to glorify
the lotus feet of the Lord who is the killer of the Madhu demon." Then in the concluding verses
(39 and 40) again said "one should worship Vasudeva and that is the easiest way to get rid of
this bondage to the material world".

Similarly there are another means to analyse 'adhyasa'. Adhyasa means repetition. What is
that one thing which has been repeated in these statements? And if we see the word 'rati' has been
repeated four times - it means attachment to hear the Lord's katha. And he talks so much about
associating with devotees and hearing Krsna-katha. From repetition we can understand that he is
speaking about devotional service not merging into Brahman. So, by this analysis we can under-
stand that their purpose is not to speak about Brahman realization.

A man is sleeping and is having a nightmare, suddenly a tiger appears in a dream. Then the
man becomes very fearfull and due to this fear he wakes up. Although this tiger is illusory, under
the modes, and the speculative state is free from the modes, but it has the power to uplift him
from this dream state to the awakened state. This is the example the impersonalists give.

They divide the reality in three: the ultimate reality, the practical reality and apparent reality. All
their statments are part of the practical reality but they have the power to uplift one to the ulti-
mate reality.
 But the defect in this example is: this tiger was experienced when he was awake. It is not that
without experience of tiger he would dream about it and would fear it. If he would see
something new like that he would not fear it. The fear appears because of experience during
the awaken state. The tiger has to exist on the awaken platform and that is why it has the power to
uplift one.

Dreams are real otherwise we could not perceive them. But they are not absolutely real as this
material world is not absolutely real.

There is an object in the mental platform. Like if we close our eyes we still can see an object just
seen previously, because the image is formed in our minds. If it was not formed in our minds it
means that it is completely unreal then we could not perceive it.