4 Sampradayas by Purusatraya Swami

Four Sampradayas
Contents
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
I Advaita Vednta of akarcrya (788-820AD)

IIThe Decline of Myvda and the Theistic Reaction of
r Rmnujcrya
5
8
8
PART I R SAMPRDAYA
A PRE-RMNUJA PERIOD
I. The lvrs
II. The cryas
B R RMNUJCRYA
I. His Life
II. r Rmnuja's Works
C VIIDVAITA VEDNTA PHILOSOPHY
I. Meaning of the Term Viidvaita
II. Fundamental Metaphysical Categories
III. Pramas and their Validity
IV. Theory of Knowledge
V. Knowledge and the External World
VI. The Doctrine of Jva
VII. The Doctrine of vara.
VIII. Brahman and Universe
IX. Sdhana and Mukti
D POST-RMNUJA PERIOD
I. Pillai Lokcrya (1264-1327)
II. Vednta Deika (1268-1369)
III. Differences between Tenkalai and Vaakalai Schools.
9
9
10
11
11
12
13
13
13
15
15
16
16
20
25
26
29
30
30
31
PART II BRAHM SAMPRDAYA
32
A INTRODUCTION
I. Need for a New Darana
B R MADHVCRYA (1238-1317)
I) His Life
II. r Madhvcryas Literary Works
C DVAITA PHILOSOPHY OF R MADHVCRYA
I. Ontology
II. Epistemology
III. The World of Experience
IV. Doctrine of tman
V. Doctrine of Brahman
VI. Sdhana-Vicra
32
32
34
34
35
36
36
39
39
40
43
43
Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners
VII. Doctrine of Mukti

D COMPARISON WITH OTHER SYSTEMS
I. Dvaita versus Viidvaita
II. Some Flashes of the Madhvas Dialetic
E POST- MADHVA PERIOD
I. Life and Works of Jayathirtha (1345-88)
II. Life and Works of Vysatrtha (1460-1539)
III. Madhva School and its Institutions
45
46
46
47
49
49
49
50
PART III KUMRA SAMPRDAYA
51
A R NIMBARKCRYA
I. His Life
II. Nimbrkas Literary Work and Others
B NIMBRKAS SVABHVIKA-BHEDBHEDA-VDA
I. General Aspects
II. Philosophical Points
III. Some Comparisons to r Caitanyas philosophy
IV Viidvaita Versus Svabhvik -Bhedbheda
51
51
51
52
52
52
54
55
PART IV RUDRA SAMPRDAYA
56
A EARLY PERIOD
I. r Viusvm
II. rdhra Svm
B R VALLABHCRYA (1481-1533)
I. His Life
II. Vallabhcrya's Works
C UDDHDVAITA PHILOSOPHY
I. Basic Philosophical Points
II. Two Types of Brahman
III. Jvas and the World
IV. Moka
56
56
57
57
57
58
59
59
59
59
60
PART IV BRAHMA-MADHVA-GAUYA-SAMPRDAYA
63
A DOCTRINE OF ACINTYA-BHEDBHEDA
I. Some Characteristic Features
II. Distinguishing Factors of the Gauya Vaiavism.
III. Some Particular Points of the Gauya Philosophy and Religion not
Found in Other Vaiava Sects:
63
63
64
66
APPENDIX I COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE VAIAVA SCHOOLS 67

I. Relation Among God, World and the Souls
II. Efficient and Material Cause of the World
III. Dependence of the souls and the world to God
IV. Some difficulties
V. God, karma
VI. karma, jna and bhakti
APPENDIX II THE LIVES OF THE LVRS
I. Poygai, Bhtam and Pey lvr
II. Tirumaliai-lvr
67
68
69
70
71
71
72
72
73
III. Nammlvr and Madhurakavi-lvr

IV. Kulaekhara lvr
V. Peryi - lvr
VI. l-lvr
VII. Toaraippoi-lvr
VIII. Tiruppn-lvr
IX. Tirumangai-lvr
74
76
77
78
79
80
81
Preface
rla Prabhupda ends his introduction of the rmad Bhagavatam
with the following words: The cult of r 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 viva-dharma or universal religion.
We, gauya vaiavas, are convinced that the philosophy of r
Caitanya is the essence of all other Vaiava philosophies. It is the
definite sidhnta, the most precise exposition of the words of
Bhagavn rla Vysadeva, and the last word in Vednta philosophy.
Actually the four Vaiava philosophies Viidvaita, Dvaita,
Suddhdvaita and Svabhvika-bhedbheda , have paved the way for
the manifestation of r Caitanya's Acintya-bhedbheda-tattva.
rla Bhaktivinoda hakura in his Navadvipa-Mahtmyam (Parikramakhaa) revealed that all the founder acryas of the Vaiava
samprdayas, namely r Rmnuja, r Madhvcrya, r
Viusvm and r Nimbrkcrya performed some pastimes in
Gaua-maala. He described a meeting Lord Caitanya had with r
Nimbrka, when He addressed him with these words:
madhva haite sradvaya kariba grahaa
eka haya kevala-advaita nirasana
ka-mrti nitya jni'thra sevana
sei ta'dvitya sra jna mahjana
rmnuja haite anni lai dvi sara
ananya-bhakati, bhaktajana-seva ra
viu haite dui sra kariba svikra
tadya sarvasva-bhva, rgamrga ra
toma haite laba mi dui mahsra
eknta rdhikraya gop-bhva ra
Later when I begin the sankrtana 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 Myvdi philosophy,
and his service to the mrti of Ka, accepting it as an eternal
spiritual being. From Rmnuja I will accept two teachings: the concept
of bhakti unpolluted by karma or jna and service to the devotees.

From Viusvm's teaching I will accept two elements: the sentiment
of exclusive dependence on Ka and the path of rga-bhakti. And
from you I will receive two great principles: the necessity of taking
shelter of Rdh and the high esteem for the gops love of Ka.
Our Gauya samprdaya is therefore very much indebted to all these
great acryas. rla Jva Gosvm declares that he resorted to the
commentaries of great vaiavas like rdhra Svm, r
Rmnujcrya and r Madhvcrya while composing his
masterpiece a-Sandarbha which expresses the essence of Lord
Caitanya's philosophy.
Another very significant act of recognition performed by the Gauyas
for the whole Vaiava community, and their revered acryas, was
offered by rla Bhaktisidhnta Sarasvat hkura. He installed the
mrtis of the four acryas in the main temple for regular worship in the
r Caitanya Maha, r Mayapur dhma.
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
samprdaya 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 samprdaya. 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 Vednta, Svm Tapasynanda
5- Conceptions of God in Vaiava Philosophical Systems, Dr.
Manju Bube
6- Philosophy and Religion of r Caitanya, O.B.L.Kapoor
7- The History & Literature of the Gauya Vaiavas and their
Relation
to other Medieval Vaiava Schools, Dr. Sambidnanda Das
8- The Philosophy of Viidvaita, P.N. rnivasachari
9- Fundamentals of Viidvaita, S.M. rnivasa Chari
10- Vaiavism Its Phiosophy, Theology and Religious
Discipline,
S.M. rnivasa Chari
11- The Holy lives of the lvrs, Alkondavili Govindacharya
12- Philosophy of r Madhvcrya, B.N.K. Sharma

13- History of the Dvaita School of Vednta & its Literature,
B.N.K. Sharma
14- r Madhvcrya and his Cardinal Doctrines, D.N. Shanbhag
15- Doctrines of Nimbrka and His Followers, Roma Bose
16- The Philosophy of Nimbrka, Madan Mohan Agrawal
17- A Life of r Vallabhcrya and the Doctrines, Prof.
G.H.Bhatt.
18- r Vallabhcrya and His Doctrines, Prof. G.H. Bhatt.
19- Pui-mrga and r Vallabhcrya, edited by C.M. Vaidya.
20- Vaiavism, edited by Steven J. Rosen.
PURUATRAYA SVM
Vndvana, Karttika 1993
Introduction
I Advaita Vednta of akarcrya (788-820AD)
Ultimate Reality, according to akara, is Brahman or tman, 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
nirgua, or devoid of all attributes, and nirviea, devoid of all
categories of intellect. It is Pure Consciousness (jna-svarpa), a pure
unity, absolutely homogeneous. The nirgua Brahman is also called
Para-Brahman, or Higher Brahman.
Brahman or tma is the Unqualified Absolute. He is the only Reality. It
is the Self which is Self-luminous and which transcends the subjectobject duality and the trinity of knower, known and knowledge.
akaras Advaita philosophy may be summarized in this sentence:
brahma satyam jagan mithy jvo brahmaiva npara 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, akara introduced in his philosophy
the theory of my.
Brahman associated with Its potency my appears as the qualified
or sagua Brahman. This sagua-Brahman is vara or God, Who is the
creator, maintainer and annihilator of this world. To the Advaita-vdis
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 Brahmans magical creative power, my. In spite
of being considered to be a product of my, Ivara is the Master of
my, 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 akara as Vivarta-vda, the theory of illusion.
The classical examples given are the rope-snake and conchshellsilver.
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 ajna, think as if
it were real.
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 nonexistent, is taken to be a superimposition or projection (adhysa) in
Brahman. Brahman associated with its power my is the ground on
which the phenomenal world is superimposed.
The world is not a transformation (parima) of Brahman, but it is an
appearance only (vivarta).
According to akara, the relation between the cause and the effect is
called vivarta-vda, wherein the cause alone is real and the effect is
illusory or a superimposition, and hence unreal. The vivarta-vda
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, akara
explains it with the theory of my and the concept of different
states of existence.
To him, there exist three states of existence: pramrthika,

vyvaharika and pratibhsika.
The Absolute Existence or Reality on the level of Brahman is called
pramrthika. In this state of pure existence there is no forms, no
individuality, no activity and no sensation. It is a state of Pure
Consciousness. The practical or empirical reality of this world is called
vyvaharika. From the phenomenal point of view, the world, which is
mere appearance or superimposition in Brahman, due to my, 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 pratibhsika 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 pratibhsika existence, the
identification of the self with the individual soul is vyvhrika
existence, while the identification of the self with Brahman is
pramrtika existence, the only real existence.
According to akara, my or avidy is not only absence of
knowledge. It is also positive wrong knowledge or illusion, therefore it
is a positive entity (bhva-rpa). But, at the same time, it is not
existent because the only existent thing is Brahman. And it cannot be
non-existent for my has the power to create the appearance of the
world in Brahman.
In fact, according to akara, my is neither existent nor nonexistent nor both. It cannot be both existent and non-existent for this
conception is self-contradictory. my, therefore, is neither real nor
unreal (sad-asad-vilakana).
To solve this situation, akara says that my is anirvacanya, or
indescribable.
my is also begginingless (andi), but not endless (ananta), since it
is cancelled in moka, liberation.
my is removed by brahma-jna, the knowledge of the essential
unity of the jivtma and Brahman. When vidy dawns avidy vanishes.
When the rope is known, the rope-snake vanishes.
All difference is due to ignorance. It is not ultimate. Names and forms
(nma-rpa) are only figments of ignorance. They are neither real nor
unreal.
Advaita philosophy does not admit that the individual soul, jva, is
ultimately real. This philosophy states that Brahman, the True Self, is
One, but It appears as many.
The plurality of jvas, which is apparent to our ordinary experience, is
accounted for on the basis of the updhis or limiting adjuncts.

Basically, there are two theories which expain how Brahman has
become many.
The One Self appears as many because of the updhis (fisical body,
suble body).
Thus, for example, ka or space is all-pervasive and one; when this
akaa is conditioned by various pots, we call them different kas. In
the same way there exists only One Self or tma, and the same when
conditioned by different internal organs (antakaraa or subtle body)
appears as different jvas. This theory is called apaccheda-vda. It is
ascribed to Vcaspati Mira, the author of Bhmat.
The other theory is called bimba-pratibimba-vda 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 updhis. This theory
was elaborated by Praktman, author of Vivaraa.
vara has been a taxing problem for the followers of akara.
According to some, vara is the reflection of Brahman in avidy.
According to others, Brahman, limited or conditioned by my is
vara, while Brahman limited by avidy or the internal organ
(antakaraa or updhis which is a product of avidy) is jva.
vara 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 vara are all due to the adjuncts of
ignorance; they are not ultimate. Where the essential unity of the tma
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 nondual. 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.
vara becomes unreal only for one who has realized his oneness
with Brahman by rising above speech and mind. For us, conditioned
souls, vara is all in all. Finite thought can never grasp Brahman. And
therefore all talks about Brahman are really talks about vara. Even
the words unconditioned Brahman refer really to conditioned vara,
for the moment we speak of Brahman, He ceases to be Brahman and

becomes vara.
Brahman, reflected in or conditioned by my, is called vara or
God. This is the celebrated distinction between God and the Absolute
which akara makes. vara is also known as Apara-Brahman or
Lower Brahman as contrasted with the unconditioned Brahman which
is called Para-Brahman or Higher Brahman.
vara or God is sat-cit-nanda. He is the Perfect Personality. He is
the Lord of my. 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 jna, not by karma or bhakti. The
sdhana for Brahman realization or moka is total vairgya,
renunciation, and meditation in the mah-vkya tat tvam asi.
IIThe Decline of Myvda and the Theistic Reaction

of
r Rmnujcrya
a) About the latter part of the twelfth century some signs of a growing
discontent with the empty abstractions of Myvda 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 akarcrya. The enunciations of
akara's owns views on the Vednta 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
akara; 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 Myvdis had perverted the goal of
oneness supported in the Upaniads; 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 Puruottama
is imaginary'.
d) When the devotionalism of the southern vaiavas reached its
height about the tenth century, there was bound to come a demand for
a formal alliance with the Vednta. The Theism of Vaiavas could no
longer be content with a subordinate place. r Yamuncrya had
undertook the task of reviving the labor of the previous Vaiavas, and
had called the attention to the defects of Myvda, in his Siddhitraya.
But a systematic commentary on the prahana-traya was a need. The
ancient worker of Bodhyana, Taka, etc, had evidently been lost, or
had become completely out of date, in style or method and totally
eclipsed by the famous commentary of r akarcrya. The task of
writing a new commentary, on par with the best in the field, so as to
push Vaiava Theism into the focus of contemporary philosophic
thought was an urgent one. It was taken up by r Rmnujcrya,
who wrote lengthy commentaries on the Vednta-stra and the
Bhagavad-gt, and thus established Vedntic Realism on a firm basis,
both logical and textual.
Part I r Samprdaya
A Pre-Rmnuja Period
I. The lvrs
a)
It is believed that the verses in the rmad Bhagavatam
(11.5.38-40) are a prophecy for the appearance of the vrs, 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, Nryaa.
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-dea such
as the Tmrapari, Ktamla, Payasvin, the extremely pious Kaver

and the Pratc Mahrad, will almost all be purehearted devotees of
the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vsudeva".
b) The word lvr means one who has a deep intuitive knowledge of
God or one who is immersed in the contemplation of God.
c)
The vrs 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 rVaiava literature some of them appeared in the end of the Dvpara
Yuga and others in the beginning of the Kali Yuga.
d)
They were all Mah-Bhgavatas who manifested devotional
ecstacy of Bhagavat-prema in the highest degree. All of them had
divine darana 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 vrs are: 1) Poygai (incarnation of the Vius
gad, the mace), 2) Bhtam (Vius anka, conch), 3) Pey (Vius
nandaka, sword), 4) Tirumaliai (Vius cakra), 5) Nanmvr
(Vivaksena), 6) Madhurakavi, 7) Klaekhara (kaustubha), 8) Periy
(Garuda), 9) l (Bh-dev), 10) Toaraippoi (vanamla, Vius
garland), 11) Tiruppn and 12) Tirumagai (rga, Vius bow).
g)
The most prominent of them is Nanmvr, who composed the
famous Tiruvymoli, also called Dramiopaniad, which is unsurpassed
in mystic literature. He is the founder of the prapatti school.
h)
The poems composed by the vrs were written in Tamil
language and they altogether (four thousand verses) are called
Nlyira-divya-prabhandam. These hymns express the state of the soul
completely dependent and surrendered to the Lord. Also they glorify
the qualities of Lord Nryaa, and the most important arcana-mrtis
of Lord Viu all around India, especially Lord Ragantha of r
Ragam. In many passages the lvrs address to Lord Ka in
Vndvana in the mood of vatsalya-bhva and even in the mood of the
gops, aspiring conjugal relationship with Ka.
i)
This Divya-prabhanda has very much importance in the rsamprdaya, and it is taken as equivalent to the prahana-traya,
being also known as Ubhaya-Vednta.
II. The cryas
While the vrs were divers into divinity, the Acryas who followed
them became the expositors of the vr's experience and the
apostles of r-vaiavism as the system is now known.
The first pontiff of r-Vaiavism was Nthamuni, descendent of the
Bhgavat immigrants from regions where the Ganges flows. He was
born at Manngui 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 Tiruvymoli of Nanmvr and then of the entire
Prabandha. While at Kumbakonam, he happened to hear the recitals of
the hymns of Nanmvr. Nthamuni 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 vr himself after having recited twelve
thousand times a verse composed by Madhurakavi vr in adoration
of his guru Nanmvr. Nthamuni grouped the Prabandha on the
Vedic model into four parts and its recitation was introduced as a part
of the temple worship at r Ragam and this practice is even now
followed in all r-Vaiava temples. Nthamuni wrote two important
works Nyya-tattva (the first treatise on Viidvaita philosophy)
and Yoga-rahasya but not available nowdays. He passed away in
samadhi in 920.
The next important acrya was lavandr or Yamuncrya, the
grandson of Nthamuni (916-1036). Even as a boy, he showed his
prodigious learning and skill when he accepted the challange of the
court paita 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 lavandr for having conquered the
proud paita, 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
Rma Mira, Nthamuni'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 r Ragam, he became converted, was overjoyed
and took sannyasa. His whole life was dedicated thereafter to
spirituality and service, and he made r Ragam a veritable Vaikuntha
on earth. He wrote few important works, the most important of these is
Siddhitraya consisting of three parts tmasiddhi, varasiddhi and
Savitsiddhi each being devoted to one of the three fundamental
doctrines of of Viidvaita. Yamuncrya's Stotra-ratna, a
masterpiece of lyrical devotion, reveals his discerning faith in
Nryaa and r 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 r Rmnujcrya
I. His Life
r Rmnuja was born in rperumbudur, near Kci, in 1017 as the
son of Asuri Keava Somyjin and Kantimati, sister of r ailapra,
the grandson of Yamuncrya. From his childhood he showed signs of
Vedntic genius and he was sent to Kci to have a course of studies in
Vednta under the great Advaita teacher Ydavapraka. It is said that
his teachings did not satisfy the budding Viidvaita.
One day, when Ydavapraka explained the Taittirya text - satyam
jnam 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, jna and nanda as His
essential ontological attributes. The guru's exposition at another time
of the Upaniadic description - kapysam - of the lotus to which the
beautiful eyes of Bhagavn were compared by translating that
expression as 'the red posterior of the monkey' brought tears of grief to
the eyes of Rmnujcrya, 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 Rmnuja in the
Ganga and attributing it to an accident. On the way, Rmnuja was
informed of the conspiracy and he escaped in the dead of night while
they were passing through a wilderness.
Weary and footsore, Rmnuja wandered several days till a hunter
and a huntress met him and offered to take him to Kci, which they
said was their destination too. When they were very near Kci the
couple suddenly disappeared after asking Rmnuja for a little water
and on his looking around, the lofty towers of Lord Varadarja in Kci
greeted his wondering eyes. Rmnuja 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.
Ydavapraka later on became a disciple of Rmnuja. At this time,
saint Tirukkacci Nambi had daily contact and converse with the Lord,
and Rmnuja came under his spiritual influence.
Rmnuja never met Yamuncrya face to face though the latter had
seen Rmnuja and, and unwilling to disturb his studies, had blessed
him from a distance. Five of Yamuncrya's disciples imparted the
teachings of Yamuncrya to young Rmnuja who was to become the

chief propagator of Viidvaita.
To dedicate himself wholly to the cause of religion and the service of
humanity, he joined the sannyasa order and became yatirja or the
prince of sannyasis on account of his austere and ascetic life. While he
settled down at r Ragam and prepared himself to carry out his
mission, he had to meet an Advaitic controversialist called Yajmrti,
and seventeen days disputation on the opponent was defeated.
He started on a pilgimage round the country from Ramevara to
Badrinnth by the West coast and returned via the East coast. With his
ever faithfull disciple Kurea, he reached r Nagar and secured a
manuscript copy of the Bodhyana vtti, which Kurea, with his
prodigious memory, was able to learn by heart even at the very first
reading. He was thus able to bring out his r-bhya by literally
following tradition and is said to have earned the title of Bhya-kra
in Kashmir from Sarasvat herself.
At this time occured the persecution of the Vaiavas by the Cola
king, Kolottunga Cola I, who, in his bigoted zeal for the spread of
aivism, tried to repress the Vaiavas by capital punishment. As
Kurea and the venerable Mahpra refused to change their faith,
their eyes were plucked out. Rmnuja'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 Ydavadri-pati.
His return to r Ragam in 1118 after an absence of two decades
was greeted with great joy by the whole r-Vaiava 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 Viidvaita. r Rmnujcrya
passed away in 1137 full of honours after a long span of 120 years.
II. r Rmnuja's Works
Nine works are credited to r Rmnuja:
1) Vedrtha-sangraha - a concise statement of the philosophical
doctrines of the Vedas, with special references to important passages
in the Upaniads.
2) Vednta-sra (The essence of the Vednta) a very brief
commentary on the Vednta-stra.
3) Vednta -dpa (Lamp of the Vedas) a longer commentary, but
still brief, on the Vednta-stra.

4) r-bhya (The beautiful commentary) a fairly comprehensive
commentary on the Vednta-stra which systematically refutes all
schools of thought, heterodox as well as orthodox, other than
Viidvaita, and constitutes the main philosophical treatise on this
particular branch of Vednta.
5) aragati-gadya a prayer in poetic prose, based on unbounded
faith in the Lord's grace and describing complete surrender to His will.
6) r-raga-gadya another prayer in poetic prose, describing the
famous shrine at r Ragam and the gracious presence of the Lord
there as the deity.
7) r-Vaikuntha-gadya yet another prose poem, describing the
glories of the Supreme abode and the beatitude of liberation.
8) Gt-bhya - a commentary on Bhagavad-gt.
9) Nitya-grantha - a manual of everyday worship and devotion.
C Viidvaita Vednta Philosophy

I. Meaning of the Term Viidvaita
The system of philosophy as expounded by r Rmnujcrya is
called Viidvaita. 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 akarcrya, 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 akarcrya is known as
Advaita Vednta.
According to the second view held by Rmnujcrya, 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 we are surrounded and also the individual souls which
experience the external world. Accordingly, Rmnuja acknowledges
three fundamental real entities - matter (acit), soul (cit) and God
(vara) - and on the basis of the principle of organic relation, upholds
that ultimate Reality is one as a unity. vara 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 vara for their very existence and are
organically related to vara 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 vara
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 Vednta expounded by r
Rmnujcrya is described as Viidvaita which means oneness of
the organic unity.
II. Fundamental Metaphysical Categories
a) Theory of Apthak-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 svarpa of an entity is determinable only through its
essential attributes.
According to Viidvaita, a svarpa devoid of attributes is a nonentity. The relation of apthak-siddhi is obtained not only between
substance and attribute but also between two substances. In this way,
the physical body (arra) and the soul within (tma), though both are
substances (dravya), are inseparable. The very concept of arra
necesarly 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 necesarly 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 Viidvaita
Vednta maintains that the entire universe of cit and acit stands in
relation of the body and soul. All sentient and nonsentient beings
constitute the arra or body of vara in the technical sense that
the former are wholly dependent on the latter for their existence;
they are completely controlled by vara and they subserve the
purpose of the Supreme Being. vara is called the tma or sarri
because He is the ground or support (dhra) for the universe,. He is
the controller (niyant) 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:
dhra-dheya (the sustainer and sustained), niyant-niymya (the
controller and controlled) and ei-ea (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 ad-vidy of
Chndogya Upaniad 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-krya-vda, attributed to the Nyya-Vaieika 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-krya-vda held by the Skhya 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 Viidvaita Vednta which
is regarded as a modified sat-krya-vda. 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. Pramas and their Validity
Prama is defined as that which is the mean of pram or valid
knowledge. According to Viidvaita, 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. Prama therefore
signifies the essential means of arriving at valid knowledge.
The Viidvaita admits three pramas; perception (pratyaka),
inference (anumna) and verbal testimony (abda). All the three
pramas reveal the truth and are therefore equally valid. Of the
three, pratyaka is an important prama because it serves as the
basis for the other two pramas. 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, pratyaka is regarded as upajvya or that which offers
subsistance, and anumna as well as abda as upajvaka or that
which subsists on another. This means that inference and verbal
testimony cannot contradict what is proved by perception.
According to Viidvaita, if the knowledge arises from anumna
and abda 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 Viidvaita
gives equal importance to all three pramas through which we can
get to know the reality.
IV. Theory of Knowledge
a) Knowledge as an Attribute of jva
The jva, which is a permanent spiritual entity, is of the nature of
consciousness (jna-svarpa). It means that knowledge or

consciousness is his very essence (svarpa-jna), or in other words,
the jva is a knowing subject. But besides this, according to
Viidvaita, the jva has another type of knowledge by which the
objects outside are revealed to him. That means - the jva is
knowledge, and also, the jva has knowledge.
This kind of knowledge which can reveal the objects outside is an
attribute of the jva, and it is called dharma-bhta-jna. There is a
logical justification for maintaining dharma-bhta-jna as distinct
from svarpa-jna. According to the stras, the jva 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 svarpajna alone is accepted, then the modifications that take place in
respect of knowledge will have to be credited to the jva and this
would go against his immutable character. According to Rmnuja,
the relation of jva 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-praka. It means, according to the Viidvaita, that
jna, at the time of revealing an object, does not require to be
manifested by another jna. 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 suupti (deep sleep).
Another point is that jna endures as in the state of bondage of jva,
even in the state of moka. During the state of bondage, jna 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 jva then becomes omniscient (sarvaja).
V. Knowledge and the External World

As explained earlier, knowledge is relational, and therefore it
necesarly 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. Jna radiates from the jva, comes into contact
with the object through the manas and sense organs, and reveals it.
The knowledge of the object thus arises when jna comes into
contact with an object through the inner and outer senses. This is
the Viidvaita theory of knowledge.
A subject-object relation is called in this philosophy - viaya-viaybhva sambandha. Viaya means the object and viay 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 svarpa-sambandha.
Although the individual self or jvtma 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 sayoga
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 sayoga or external relation is possible,
because in this system knowledge is also regarded as dravya or
substance.
VI. The Doctrine of Jva
The jva or the individual self is an eternal spiritual entity and is
distinct from the Supreme Self or Brahman. Even in the state of
moka, it does not lose its individuality. Jvas are infinite in number
and they are essentially of the nature of knowledge (jna- svarpa).
Some different theories of jva: the Carvaka view that body itself is
jva; the Nyya theory that jva is not of the nature of
consciousness; the Advaita view that jva , which is pure
consciousness, is identical with Brahman; the Vaieika view that
the jva is all pervasive (vibhu); the Jaina view that the jva is of the
size of the body which it occupies.
a) Jva 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-tma)? Would it mean that tma is different from the self? As
self and tma cannot be different, such an expression has to be
understood in its secondary sense. That is, the tma here means the
mind and not the self. That the body and self are different is evident
from various scriptural texts. For example, the ruti 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.
Jva is also different from the mind (manas) because it is established
by pramas that manas serve as an instrument (karaa) for
recollection of past experience by jva. What is a karaa for an
agent cannot itself be the agent kart.
b) Jva as the Subject of Knowledge
Jva is not a non-sentient entity (jaa) with knowledge as its
accidental and external quality. Instead jva is an eternal entity of
the nature of knowledge (jna-svarpa) and the subject of
knowledge (jt). However, jva is not merely jna-svarpa, as
Advaita says, but it also possesses knowledge as an essential
attribute. It is the substrate for knowledge, which means that jva is
also the knowing subject.
Jna is defined as that which manifests something (artha-prakah).
This characteristic feature of jna is common to both the substrate
(tma) and its dharma (jna). The former reveals itself and the
latter manifests objects. As both reveal something, the term jna 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 (dpa) and its luminosity
(prabh) are the same character since the element of fire or
brightness (tejas) is common to both.
The jva constituted of knowledge which is known as dharm-jna 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-bhta-jna or
attributive knowledge reveals itself as well as the external objects to
the self and does not know them.
c) Jva as Self-Luminous
Self-luminosity or svayam-prakatva of tma is not to be understood
in the sense that tma 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 tma which is nitya is self-luminous, it should manifest itself
always. But, some say, in suupti or deep sleep we do not have the
experience of anything,and it is not therefore possible to assert that
tma reveals itself in that state. Against this argument it is explained
that even during the state of deep sleep tma 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) Jva is Eternal
Are jvas eternal? There is a theory which says that Brahman alone is
eternal and all else including the jvas originate from Brahman and
dissolve in it. In support of this it is quoted the famous Chndogya
Upaniad text which says that in the beginning there was being, one
only without a second. Accordingly, it is believed that jvas 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 tma 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 jva are
born in the sense that they become associated with the physical
bodies. As it is made explicit in the Bhagavad-gt, the birth of jva
is only its association with a physical body and death is its
disassociation from it.
The Buddhists hold the view that at each moment jva undergoes
change. This would mean that jva 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 jvas continue to exist till they achieve moka
and that thereafter they would cease to exist. The Viidvaita
does not accept this view because the jvas do exist in the state of
moka without losing their individuality. When the jvas become free
from the shackles of karma, they manifest themselves in their true
nature in the state of moka.
e) Jva is Kart and Bhokta

We have already seen that jva is a knowing subject (jt). The same
jva who is the knower is also the agent of action (kart) and
enjoyer of pleasure and pain (bhokta). This means the same tma
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 (antakaraa). The cognisership (jttva) 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 sstras is immutable (nirvikra). For explaining this
question, the Viidvaita philosophy affirms that whatever
modification take place, these apply to attributive knowledge
(dharma-bhta-jna), which is distinct from the self and, in this way,
the tma remains unaffected by them.
It may be noted that jva is regarded as jt or knower in the sense
that it is the raya or substrate for knowledge through which all
experiences take place. By being raya for jna which is subject to
modifications, jva is not subjected to any change. In the same way,
karttva and bhokttva admitted in jva do not involve change in it.
Jva is kart or doer in the sense that it is the raya or substrate for
kti or effort.
The same explanation holds good for jva being the bhokta. Bhoga is
the experience in the form of pleasure and pain. Pleasure and pain
are different states (avasths) of jna. Pleasure is an agreeable
disposition of the mind (anuklatva-jna) and pain is the
disagreeable one (pratiklatva-jna). As jva is the raya 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-bhta-jna) and not to jva.
f) Theory of Free-Will and Determination

If the action of jva is controlled by Paramtma, does the jva have
any freedom at all to act? If jva 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 vara. By according such an approval, vara incites
the individual to proceed further. vara gives his approval to the
activity initiated by an individual, he does not become the kart, the
doer. The real kart is the individual.
g) Plurality of the Individual Selves
The jvas 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) Jva as Au
Jva is described in the stras to be infinitesimal, or au. The
monadic character of jva is its natural form. That is, it is not caused
or conditioned by any physical limitation. vara is vibhu or allpervasive but He is described as infinitesimal in the inner recess of
the heart. Here the anutva of Paramtma is not His natural character
but is caused by physical limitation (aupdhika) No such limitation is
mentioned in respect of jvtma. Therefore anutva of jva is its
natural state.
While describing jva as infinitesimal, the Upaniad uses the
expression that jva is ananta or infinite. In another place, jva is
described as nitya and sarvagata, that is, it is eternal and pervades
everywhere. This gives the impression that jva is vibhu or allpervasive. But the Viidvaita points out that such description of
jva as pervading everywhere are to be understood to mean that
jva as a spiritual entity could enter into any material substance
without obstruction.
Even though jva is not all-pervasive, its attributive jna is infinite
and all-pervasive like the light of the sun. The infinite character
(anantya) applies not to jva but to its attributive knowledge. This
means that jva is au, whereas its knowledge is capable of
becoming infinite. In the state of mukti, when the jva is totally free
from karma it becomes omniscient.
i) Jva and Brahman
vara and jva are two spiritual entities which are absolutely real
and also distinct. The vetvatara Up. says: There are two, the
one knowing, the other not knowing, both unborn, the one a ruler,
the other not a ruler. The Muaka Up. describes jva as one
caught up in bondage, whereas vara is free from it. The Antarymi
Brhmaa of the Bhad-ranyaka Up. refers to Brahman as the
indweller of jvtma. The Vednta-stra states categorically that
Brahman is different from jva which is subject to karma.
The scriptural texts also speak of non-difference between Brahman
and jva. Thus says the Chndogya Up.: Thou art that (tat-tvamasi). The Bhad-ranyaka Up. equally asserts the identity: This self
is Brahman (ayam-tma-brahma). How do we account for such
texts which emphasise non-difference or identity of Brahman and
jva?
Rmnuja does not accept the bhedbheda theory because,
according to him, it would ammount to the admission of the defects
of jva 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
Upaniadic text cannot be maintained.
Then, Rmnuja resorts to a stra which acknowledges the two
conflicting views about jva and Brahman as different (nn) and
also non-different (anyath ca), and uses the expression aa to
explain the relation of jva and Brahman. (Vednta-stra II.3.42:
ao nnvyapdeat anyath ca...) while commenting on this stra,
Rmnuja states that jva is to be accepted as an integral part
(aa) 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 apthak-siddhi, Rmnuja explains the relation of
jva to Brahman. From ontological stand point Rmnuja explains
the relation of jva to Brahman on the basis of the concept of bodysoul relation (arra-arri-bhva). Brahman as the material cause
of the universe and ground of all existence is the adhra and the
jvas are described as dheya, 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 niyant and jva is the niymya,
one which is controlled by vara. From the ethical and religious
stand point, jva is described as ea, as one who subserves God,
and God as ein, the Master of all. This threefold relationship is

described as arra-arri-sambandha, or the relation of the body to
the soul. Thus jva is an integral part (aa) or mode (prakra) of
Brahman and it is therefore distinct but inseparable from it.
VII. The Doctrine of vara.
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 Upaniads as
the ultimate Reality is the same as vara 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 (upadna-karaa) by
the Upaniads undergoes any transformation or does it appear itself
as the phenomenal universe owing to cosmic ignorance (avidy).
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 Vednta 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 nirgua, the undifferentiated transcendental
Being or sagua, a God endowed with attributes.
The second issue is related to the major controversy in Vednta as to
whether vivarta-vda 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 avidy as
formlated by the Advaita Vednta in all its aspects including the
issue whether the universe is illusory in character.
The third issue refers to the controversy between Naiyyikas and
Vedntins whether or not the existence of God can be proved by
means of logical arguments. While Naiyyikas hold that the
existence of God can be proved by means of logic, Vedntins
maintain that revealed scripture (ruti) 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 ruti,
vara can create the universe by his will (sakalpa) without the aid
of a body. Neither inference (anumna) nor the statements of the
atheists can disprove the existence of God. ruti 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 Upaniadic texts say
(Mu. Up. I.1.5 yat tad adreyam agrhyam) that reality is
unperceivable and ungraspable. Another text states - (Tait. Up. II.9.1l
yato vco nivartante aprpya manas saha) From whom speech
and mind turn away, because they are unable to reach him.
Brahman is therefore avedya - beyond all empirical pramas and
cognition.
The Vaiavas criticises this view. It is not correct to say Brahman
cannot be know by means of scriptural texts. The very Upaniads
say Brahman is only knowable by ruti. Thus the Kaha Up. (II-15)
states: sarve ved yat padam mananti - "All Vedas speak of this
nature". There are several texts that say Brahman is describable by
words and also knowable. (Chnd.Up. I.6.7.: tasyoditi nma;
Bhat.Up. 4.3.6.: atha nmadheyam satyasya satyam). The
Upaniadic 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 Upaniadic passage.
Another impersonalist argument is that the terms Brahman, tma,
etc mentioned in the Upaniads do not have a primary import
(mukhyrtha) in respect of Brahman, but they only have a secondary
(lakaa). 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 (akh-candra-nyya). 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 Upaniads serves to convey the knowledge of Brahman
without having direct reference to Brahman.
According to Viidvaita, there is no difficulty at all in accepting
primary import in respect of Parabrahman, the higher reality
postulated by the impersonalists. The word Brahman, tma etc and
all the Upaniadic 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 Viidvaita Vednta, the ultimate reality or
Brahman referred to in the Upaniads is the personal God of religion.
It rejects the theory of two Brahmans admitted by Advaita Vednta
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
Vednta Stras 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, r
Rmnujcrya assserts that the term Brahman denotes
Puruottama, the Supreme Person or self, who is essentially free
from all imperfections and possesses infinite auspicious attributes os
unsurpassable excellence.
The Mahopaniad I.1 says: eko ha vai Nryaa st Nryaa
alone existed in the beginning. Acccording to the gramatical
principle formulated by Panini the term Nryaa is treated as a
specific proper name (saja-pada) and is applicable to one specific
Being only but not to any other entity like the general terms such as
Brahman, sat and tma. It is therefore concluded that Brahman
referred to in the Upaniads as the cause of the universe is the same
as Nryaa. Further the Subla Upaniad describes Nryaa as
antartma the inner controller of all beings in the universe. Only that
which is the creator of the universe could be the antarymi or inner
controller of all beings. Several texts confirm this point. On the basis
of the stras it is then asserted that Nryaa is the very Brahman
described in the Upaniads as the creator of the universe. And Viu
the Supreme God of religion as upheld in the Vedas, is used as
synonymous.
c) The Theory Of Nirgua 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 Upaniadic 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 nirgua
rutis and sagua rutis.
The impersonalists consider that the nirgua rutis are of greater
validity than the sagua rutis. For proving this theory they use the
Mimaa principle of interptetation apaccheda-nyya , the principle
of the subsequent sublating the earlier.
But, on the other side, the Viidvaita 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 sagua rutis as invalid
in the basis of apaccheda-nyya. Vednta Deika points out that
instead of apaccheda-nyya in this case, another principle of
interpretation has to be applied .
According to the application of utsargapavada nyya, 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 sagua and nirgua rutis. 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 nirgua and that it is
higher than sagua Brahman.
r Rmnujcrya has repeatedly stated in his r-bhya that the
concept of nirviea-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 nirvieavastu by any of the accepted pramas. All knowledge reveals an
object only as qualified. Such and undifferentiated reality as being
beyond all thought and speech is a metaphysical abstraction.
Therefore Viidvaita rejects this concept of nirgua Brahman and
upholds that the Ultimate Reality is only a saviea Brahman which
is the same as the personal God of religion.
d) God and His Attributes

According to Viidvaita, Brahman conceived as saviea implies
that it also possesses a bodily form (vigraha) and is qualified by
attributes (gua) 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 vara out of His free will
(icch) for the benefit of His devotees to enable them to offer
prayers and do meditation. The bodily form assumed by vara in
His eternal abode is nitya. It is constituted of pure sattvika stuff
known as uddha-sattva. There are several prama supporting the
existence of a nitya-vigraha or umblemished and imperishable bodily
form for vara.
According to Viidvaita, every entity in the universe, both physical
and ontological, consists of two aspects; the substantive aspect
(svarpa) which is dharmi and the attribute aspect (svabhva) which
is dharma. In the light of this statement , a question arises: what is
the svarpa of Brahman?
Rmnuja says that these five distinguishing characteristics
determine the svarpa of Brahman: 1) satyam (absolutely nonconditioned existence); 2) jna (eternal and non-contracted
knowledge); 3)anantam (not limited by space or time), from the text
(Tait.Up I.1) satyam jnam anantam brahma; 4) nandam
(unsurpassable bliss), from the same text nandam brahmao
vidvn and; 5) amalam (free from all imperfections).That entity
which is characterised by these five attributes is the svarpa of
Brahman. In other words, when we speak of the svarpa of
Brahman, we describe it as satyam or reality, jnam or knowledge,
anantam or infinitude, nandam or bliss and amalam or purity. When
we speak of the essential characteristics of Brahman, we describe
them as satyatva, jnatva, anantatva etc.
The Taittirya Up. (III.1) offers another important definition of
Brahman: yato v imani bhtani jyante, yena jtni jvanti, yat
prayanty abhisamvianti tad vijijsasva 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 Vednta Stra it is stated:
janmdyasya yata. This charecteristic of Brahman as the creator of
the universe, though it is an important function of the Supreme
Being, does not constitute the svarpa unlike satyata, jnatra etc,
but the attributive or functional character of Brahman.
Besides the five distinguishing characteristics, six other important
attributes are also admitted in vara; jna (knowledge, or more

specifically, dharma-bhta-jna of Brahman. He is omniscient,
sarvaja); bla (strength, or the quality by which vara supports
everything); aivarya (lordship, or the quality of being the creator
and controller of the universe); vrya (virility refers to that quality of
vara who, in spite of his being the material cause of the universe,
remains unaffected by the changes, vikra); akti (power or that
special quality through which vara causes the evolution of the
prakti into the manifold universe); and tejas (splendour, which
means that vara does not depend on any external aids for
creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe).
e) The Five Manifestations of God
According to Viidvaita, God manifests Himself in five forms:
1) Para, the transcendental form.
2) Vyha or the divine manifestation as Vsudeva, Sakaraa,
Pradyumna and Aniruddha for purposes of meditation and
creation of the universe.
3) Vibhva or the several incarnations of God in the universal
manifestations such as Matsya, Krma, Varha, Rma etc
4) Arch, that is, entering into the substance chosen by devotees, as,
for example, idols in the sacred temples.
5) Antarymi, that is, residing within the inner recess of our hearts
for purposes of meditation.
vara 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
vara derives nanda. 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 Vednta is to provide a satisfactory
explanation of the material causality of Brahman. The Upaniads

indicate that Brahman is the material cause (upadna kraa) of the
universe on the anology of the lump of clay being the material cause
of the pot. On the strength of the Upaniadic teaching all Vedntists
except Madhva accept that Brahman is the material cause of the
universe. The ruti 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
svarpa of Brahman. How is this to be done? Each school of Vednta
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
Ydavapraka and Bhaskara. This is known as Brahma-parimavda.
2) Brahman associated with cit and acit in their subtle form is the
material cause of the universe - this view is held by Viidvaita
and it may be regarded as modified Brahma-parima-vda.
3) Brahman as the basis of the illusory appearance of the universe is
its material cause. This is the Advaita view known as vivarta-vda.
VIII. Brahman and Universe
a) Refutation of Vivarta-vda theory
r Rmnujcrya in his r-bhya has levelled a seven-fold
objection against this doctrine (sapta-vidhnupapatti):
1) raynupapatti: What is the locus or support of my? Where
does avidy reside? If there is any such thing as my or avidy,
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 selfluminous consciousness or knowledge and avidy means
ignorance. Then how can ignorance exist in knowledge? Again,
avidy cannot reside in the individual self, for the individuality of
the self is said to be the creation of avidy. How can the cause
depend on its affect? Hence avidy cannot exist either in Brahman
or the jva. It is an illusory concept, a figment of the myvdi's
imagination. If it resides anywhere, it resides only in the mind of
the myvdi who has imagined this wonderful pseudo-concept,
this logic myth.
2) tirodhnnupapatti: How can avidy 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) svarpnupapatti: What is the nature of avidy? Is it positive or
negative or both or neither? If it is positive how can it be avidy?
Avidy 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 myvdi
admits that ignorance is removed by knowledge, ignorance can
never be positive. And if avidy is negative, then how can it project
this world illusion on Brahman? To say that avidy is both positive
and negative is to embrace selfcontradiction. And to say that it is
neither positive or negative is to give up all logic.
4) anirvacanyatvnupapatti: Avidy is defined by the myvdi as
indefinable; it is described as indescribable. This is a clear selfcontradiction. To avoid this the myvdi says that avidy 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 myvdi 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)Pramnupapatti: By what prama or means of valid cognition is
avidy cognized? Avidy 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
avidy lacks. Nor can it be maintained on the authority of the
scriptures for they declare my to be a real wonderful power of
creating this wonderful world which really belongs to God.
6) Nivartaknupapatti: There is no remover of avidy. The myvdi
believes that knowledge of the unqualified attributeless Brahman
removes avidy. 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 avidy.
7) Nivty-anupapatti: In the last point we were told that there is no
remover of avidy. This point tells us that there is no removal of
avidy. Avidy is said to be positive (bhva-rpa) by the myvdi.
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, jna, bhakti and prasda. 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. Sdhana and Mukti
a) Eligibility of Jva for Moka
While considering the basic nature of moka, two basic questions
arise. First, is there scope at all for the soul to escape from the socalled bondage? Secondly, if there be, would all souls be eligible for
moka? 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 jva 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 jva escape
from bondage?
It is no doubt true that jva is passing through the cycle of karmavidy. 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
vara. As a result of this he becomes an aspirant for moka
(mumuku) and thereafter he undertakes Brahmopsana or the
meditation on Brahman which is the means to moka. The upsana
helps to get rid of the past karma as well as the karma of the future.
Once the jva becomes free from karma, it achieves moka.

It is interesting to note how the jva becomes a mumuku, an
aspirant for moka. In the state of dissolution (pralaya) jva is
almost like a non-intelligent material entity. At the time of creation,
jva escapes from this condition and comes back to life being
endowed with a physical body and consciousness through the
compassion of vara. Even as a living individual, the jva 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 jva 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 (dukha) and the so-called happiness is rooted
only in suffering (dukha- mla) 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 moka.
According to Viidvaita, jvas 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 jvas are eligible for moka but, however, only an individual who
is desirous of attaining moka has to endeavour for it by adopting
the prescribed sdhana 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 Moka

Bhakti as a means or upya to moka 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 vara and arama, along with
spiritual knowledge. The performance of one's duties and rituals
(karma) will have to be observed, as explained in the Gt, purely as
a divine service for the pleasure of God (bhagavat-prti) and not in
any expectation of any rewards thereof. This in brief is the
Viidvaita view of sdhana for moka.
The justification for introducing the concept of Bhakti is provided on
the authority of a specific passage in the Mu Up. and three
relevant verses in the Bhagavad Gt. The Upanidadic text says
(Mu Up. 3.2.3) nyam tm pravacanena labhyo, na medhay na

bahun rutena / yam evaia vnute tena labhya, tm vivnute
tanm 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 Gt (11.53-54) seem to contradict the
statement in the Bhad-ranyaka Up (6.5.6): tma v are
draavya rotavyo mantavyo nididhyasitavya, which says that
the process of self realization implies ravana (hearing) manana
(reflection) and nididhysana (contemplation). The explanation is
that what is negated in that particular verse in Mu.Up is that mere
ravana, 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 jna, upsana, dhyna, dhruvnumti, etc
which are used in the Upaniads as means of moka are to be
understood to mean the same thing. Otherwise it would amount to
the admission of different means of moka. 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 Mimaa principle of
interpretation.
If jna alone is considered as the sole means to moka, as the
impersonalists contend, all the upaniadic texts referring to upsana
become meaningless. Bhakti as a upya for moka is described in
the Gt 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 Viidvaita, bhakti-yoga is to be preceded by the
practice of karma-yoga and jna-yoga referred to in the Bhagavad
Gt. Karma-yoga emphasises the disinterested performance of
action (karma), such as sacrifice (yaj), charity (dna) and austerity
(tapas) as divine service without any expectation of rewards thereof.
Jna-yoga signifies constant meditation upon tma, the individual
self with control of the mind and senses. The two are inter-related
and the aim of both is self realization (tmvalokana). 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 adhikra for bhakti-yoga are:

a) a clear philosophic knowledge of the realms of karma, jna and
bhakti
b) the will to rigorously undergo the discipline in due order
c) the stric qualification of birth as an essential aid to bhakti, and
d) sttvic patience to endure the prrabdha-karma till it is exhausted
or expiated.
According to Viidvaita, although bhakti is a desirable means to
mukti, it is not easily practiced in this age of Kali Yuga owing to its
ardousness. But stra, in its infinite mercy to the erring humanity,
guarantees God to all Jvas 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 mumuku 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 prrabdha-karma.
The supreme merit of prapatti lies in the universality of its appeal to
all casts and classes, the guarantee of salvation to all jvas who
cannot follow the arduous path of bhakti.
c) The Nature of Mukti
In the state of moka, jva becomes totally free from the shackles of
karma and as such its jna manifests itself in its fullness. Jva
becomes omniscient and is thus capable of comprehending
Brahman in all its splendour. Once this state is reached by jva there
is never a return to the stage of bondage.
On the strength of scriptural texts, it is admitted that jva attains a
status in moka almost equal to Brahman. Thus, the ruti says that
the jva in the state of mukti enjoys supreme equality (paramasmya) with the Lord.
The impersonalists take the text (Mu. Up. 3.2.9) brahma veda
brahmaiva bhvati, which literally means that the knower of
Brahman becomes Brahman, and which implies the identity
(tadtmya) of the individual self and the Brahman.
But the Viidvaita points out that this text does not so much refer
to identity as to equality (sdharmya), 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 moka could
assume a body out of its free will (sakalpa) for the purpose of
enjoying bliss or for movement. Such a body assumed by the jva is

not a karmic body and as such no bondage is caused to it. The jva
could also remain without a body if he so desires.
D Post-Rmnuja Period
For nearly two centuries after the advent of r Rmnuja, there was
no significant contribution to the Viidvaita system by way of
major philosophic works. The acryas who succeeded Rmnuja,
though some of them were eminent Vedntists such as Parsara
Bhaa, Viucitta, Vtsya Varada, Sudarana Sri and treya
Rmnuja confined their attention primarily to the dissemination of
the philosophy of Rmnuja. Some of the acryas such as Pilln,
Nanjyar, Periavaccn Pillai, etc who were attracted by the
devotional hymns of the lvrs in Tamil were preocupied with writing
elaborate commentaries on them, mainly Nanmvr's Tiruvymoli.
It was at this time that the schism in r-vaiavism became marked
and gave rise to the schools of Tenkalai and Vaakalai. The first
formulator of the Tenkalai school was Pillai Lokcrya and the head
of the Vaakalai was the famous Vednta Deika, regarded as the
most prominent sucessor of r Rmnujcrya. 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 Vaiavism, the works of the Tenkalai
school which are mostly in Tamil language are complementary to
those of the Vaakalai, and Vednta Deika is aclaimed by both the
schools in their Vedntic aspect as the defender of Vaiavism
regarded as Viidvaita-darana.
I. Pillai Lokcrya (1264-1327)
He was the older contemporary of Vednta Deika and is generally
regarded as the first proponent of the Tenkalai school. His spiritual
master is traced to Rmnuja hierarchically through Periyavccn
Pillai, Nampillai, Najiyar, Parsara Bhaa and r Rmnuja. When
the muslims sacked r Ragam and slaughted the Vaiavas 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 Maipravla or
sanskritized Tamil.
Pillai Lokcrya was suceeded by Manavla Mahmunigal, who is
revered by the Tenkalais as their greatest acrya. The chief
contribution of Tenkalaism to the cause of r-vaiavism consists in

its democratic dissemination to all people, of the truths of the
darana confined till then to the higher castes.
II. Vednta Deika (1268-1369)
He was born at Tuppil in Kci and got the name Venkatantha. His
father was Ananta Sri and his mother Totramb, sister of treya
Rmnuja. He studied with his uncle treya Rmnuja, and it is said
that he accompanied him to Vtsya Varadcrya'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 Vtsya Varada
that he would become a great pillar of strength for the Viidvaita
school.
Vednta Deika was an unrivalled example of jna and vairagya. It is
said that he used to live by ucha-vtti, receiving alms in the streets,
and spent all his life in writing philosophical and religious works.
While he lived in Kci and r Ragam, he had to work in the midst
of various rival sects, and Pillai Lokcrya, who was senior to him in
age and was the supporter of the Tenkalai school, against which
Vednta Deika 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 r Ragam, Vednta
Deika hid himself amongst the dead bodies and fled ultimately to
Mysore.
It is important to note that Vednta Deika had to accomplish two
major tasks - the first was refutation of the Myvdi philosophy
which undermined the fundamental tenants of Viidvaita, and
the second and greater task was to present a constructive exposition
of the fundemental doctrines of Viidvaita. The first task was
fulfilled by writing an independent polemical work entitled
atadani. As the title suggests, one hundred philosophical issues
were addressesd for systematic criticism by adopting the dialetical
method. Vednta Deika 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 atadani, are Tattva-mukt-kalpa, Nyya-pariuddhi,
Nyya-siddhjana, Sarvrtha-siddhi, Tattra-k (a commentary on
r-bhya) and many others.
III. Differences between Tenkalai and Vaakalai Schools.

The split between these two schools widened in course of time and
the ptrams or laudatory verses recited in the temple worship today
in praise of leading acryas 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 vrs as in higher levels in
terms of religious authority. The Vedakalai gives emphasis to
Sanskrit literature and gives equal value to the is and vrs.
b) According to Vaakalai school, r Lakmi Devi possesses the
same spiritual status as rman Nryaa. They are One,
although seperated. Yet the Tenkalai school stresses the logic of
monotheism that only Nryaa is the Supreme. r Lakmi
would be a special category of jva above all else.
c) While the Vaakalai school afirms that bhakti-yoga and prapattiyoga as sadhyopya, or the means to moka 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-kaka, or grace not
arising from any cause, and its position is compared to the
mrjara-nyya analogy -'the cat carrying the kitten in its mouth'.
Yet the Vaakalai view is based on sahetuka-kaka, or grace
arising from a cause, and its position is compared to the markaanyya analogy -'the young monkey clinging to the mother for
protection'.
Part II Brahm Samprdaya
A Introduction
I. Need for a New Darana
(Criticism of the Viidvaita Vednta in the version of the followers
of
r Madhvcrya)
In spite of Rmnujcrya having written lengthly commentaries on
Vednta-stra and Bhagavad Gt, and other important books like

Vedartha-Sagraha, 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
Upaniads. A passing notice of a few passages from the principal
Upaniads, such as was attempted by Rmnuja in his writings, was
not sufficient to inspire confidence.
It seemed the Viidvaita 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-Upaniadic
literatures and perpetuating the distinction between the karma and
jna-kas, the Viidvaita system was unwittingly too
indiferent to the Vedas and disproportionately exalted the Upaniads
over the Mantras.
The label and ideology of Viidvaita 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 Viidvaita) to
an existence perpetually qualified by two attributes (vieas) 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 Jva and jaa, which according to
Rmnujas own showing are essentially and eternally distinct from
Brahman, cannot be treated as its attributes in the same sense in
which, for instance, satyam, jnam, anantam and nanda
are treated by the Upaniads as attributes of Brahman. The
Viiadvaitic 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 Viidvaita similarly indicates a weakness to try to
press Theism into a monistic mould. A viiaikya 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 Vaiavism
neither Rmnuja nor his predecessors had given it a firm textual
footing in the Vedas, Upaniads and Stras. There originally were a
few presumably Vaiava commentaries on the Vednta-stra prior
to Rmnujcrya. But since for some centuries before and after
akarcrya 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 Vedntic pantheon and their status, or
even the theological identity of Brahman had no attraction for any
commentator. But when the great Bhgavata religion had come into
philosophical proeminance, in the 10th and 11th centuries, largely
through the efforts of the Tamil Vaiava saints (vrs), side by
side with the speculative systems like those of akarcrya, it was
time to find a place for the highest God of the the Bhgavata cult,
namely Viu-Nryaa or Vsudeva. r Rmnuja himself had, in
his works, sounded a sufficiently sectarian note and upheld r
Viu-Nryaa as the Para-Brahman of the Vednta. 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 Upaniads and Vednta-stra. As a matter of fact, he
had never at all looked at the g Veda, the ranyakas and the
Upaniads from that point of view and with that object. Although
Rmnujcrya had explained about the personal God in his
writings, it may be argued that his commentary on the Brahmastras is not sufficiently sectarian. As a Myvdi writer
commented: The only sectarian feature of the Rmnujcryas
commentary is that he identifies Brahman with Viu, but this in no
way affects the interpretations put on the Stras and the Upaniads.
Nryaa, 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 Viu in Hindu religion and philosophy.
For some inscrutable reason, Rmnujcrya showed indifference to
the great gospel of Vaiavism, the rmad-Bhagavatam. And so
had his predecessor Yamuncrya. This neglect, quite naturally,
came, in Advaitic circles, to be interpreted as a tacit admission, on
the part of the Vaiava realists, of the unquestionable monistic
tenor of that Pura. We learn from Jva Gosvms Sandharbhas
that there was at least two such early commentaries on rmad
Bhagavatam - one by Puyarnya and the other by the celebrated
impersonalist dialectician Citsukha. As a result of the labours of
these two eminent commentators, Vaiava Realism must have lost
ground and much of its prestige and stood in imminent danger of
losing its mainstay in the most popular Vaiava scripture, unless
something was urgently done to rehabilitate it.
Parallel to all this and during all these centuries, aivism had been
growing into a power. From as early as the days of the Puras, the
cult of iva had been the main rival of Vaiavism. The period
between the 6th and 12th centuries was the heydey of aivism in
the South and was distinguished for its mighty literary activity of the
Tamil aiva saints (Nyanmrs). So great was the influence and
ascendency of aivism in the South that r Rmnuja had actually
to flee r Ragam and find more congenial haunts for his
Vaiavism in distant Melkote in South Karnataka.
The combined effects of all these forces must have driven Vaiava
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 Vedntic
Theism and Vaiava Realism in the person of r Madhvcrya.
B r Madhvcrya (1238-1317)
I) His Life
r Madhva was born possibly in 1238 and lived 79 years (1317)
His parents were Nryaa Bhaa and Vedavati, brhmaas of
humble status, in the village of Pjaka, eight miles SE of the town of
Udupi. His original name was Vsudeva.
At seven he had his Upyana and went through a course of Vedic
and stra studies. Probably at the age of sixteen he took sannyasi
from Acyutapreka and got the name Prapraja.
Some time after initiation was spent in the study of Vedntic classics
beginning with the Istasiddhi of Vimuktman. However frequent
arguments between master and disciple terminated the studies
before long.
Prapraja was then made head of the mah of Acyutapreka,
under the name of nandatrtha.
The name Madhva was assumed by him for certain esoteric reasons
connected with his claim to be an avatra of Vayu.
He possessed an uncommon physique and extraordinary intellectual
power.
r Madhva spent some time in Udupi teaching the other disciples of
Acyutapreka. 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, Kany Kumari, r Ragam, Ramevaram, etc.
This tour took two or three years.
Back to Udupi, r Madhva was resolved to establish a new

sidhnta, and he began his career as an author. His first literary work
was the Gt-bhya.
Then he started his first North Indian tour. At Badrinth,
Madhvcrya left by himself for Mahbadarikrama, the abode of
Vysadeva, in the upper regions of the Himalayas.
He returned after some months and inspired by Vysadeva he wrote
his Brahmastra-bhya, which was transcribed to his dictation by
his disciple Satyatrtha.
The returning trip to Udupi was through Bihar and Bengal, and to the
banks of the Godavari, where Madhvcrya had a debate with a
veteran scholar obhana Bhaa, who was defeated and became his
important disciple under the name of Padmanbha Trtha. Another
important conversion during this tour was of Narahari Trtha. 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
bhya in place of those he had so ruthlessly criticized. But with the
publication of his commentaries on Gt and the Brahma-stras 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 Acyutapreka, completely, to the new sidhnta. He
was defeated not without a fierce resistance. Madhvcrya now had
got many converts and adherents.
In that time, he installed the beautiful deity of Lord Ka in his
Mah. He introduced some changes in the ceremonial codes and the
rigorous fasting on Ekadai days.
After that, Madhvcrya started on his second tour of North India
and returning after visiting Delhi, Kuruketra, 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 Upaniads, rmad Bhagavatam
and Mahbharata.
The increasing popularity of the new faith naturally caused no small
apprehension to the followers of the established faith - Advaita.
Madhvcrya's only business was to dispel the mist of Myvdi
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 myvds.
This incident brought Madhvcrya into touch with Jayasiha, the
ruler of Kumbha, and in this opportunity the great court paita
Trivikrama Paitcrya was converted. Trivikrama's conversion was
a turning point in the history of the faith. He wrote a commentary on
Madhva's Brahmastra-bhya, called Tattva-pradpa and his son

Nryaa Paitcrya 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 Anuvykyna based on the
Vednta-stra.
The last years of Madhvcrya seem to have been spent in teaching
and worship.
He designated his younger brother Viu and seven other disciples to
become the founders of the Aa-Mahas of Udupi. Three works
were composed about this time: Nyya-vivaraa, Karma-niraya and
Kamta-mahrarva.
Charging his disciples with his last message from his favorite
Upaniad, Aitareya not sit still but go forth and preach , r
Madhvcrya left this world in 1318.
II. r Madhvcryas Literary Works
r Madhvcrya wrote thirty seven works, collectively called Sarvamla. 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 Prahna-traya:
1) Gt-bhya, 2) Gt-tatparya, 3) Brahma-stra-bhya, 4)
Anubhya, 5) Au-vykhyna, 6) Nyya-vivaraa, 7-16) ten
Upaniads bhya, 17) g-veda-bhya
b) Ten short monographs Daa-prakraa, some elucidating the
basic principles of his system, its logic, ontology, epistemology,
etc:
8) Prama-lakaa, 19) Kath-lakaa, 20) Updhi-khaana, 21)
Myvda-khaana, 22) Prapaca-mithytvnumna-khaana,
23) Tattva-skhyna, 24) Tattva-viveka, 25) Tattvoddyota, 26)
Viu-tattva-niraya and 27) Karma-niraya.
c) Commentaries on Smti-prahana:
28) Bhagavata-ttparya and 29) Mahbhrata-ttparyaniraya.
d) Poems, stotras:
30) Yamaka-bhrata, 31) Narasiha-nakha-stuti, 32) Dvdaastotra, and some
works on worship: 34) Tantra-sra-sagraha, 35) Sadcrasmti, 36) Yati-praava-kalpa, 37) Ka-jayanti-niraya.
C Dvaita Philosophy Of r Madhvcrya

The cardinal doctrines of r Madhvcrya Dvaita Vednta have
been summed up as nine in a verse attributed to Vysatrtha (14781539):
1) hari paratara In all respects Lord Viu alone is supreme and
the highest; 2) satya jagat This entire universe is truly and
ultimately real; 3) tattvato bheda The five-fold difference is
fundamental; 4) jva-ga harer anucar The manifold
embodied souls are all dependent on Lord Viu; 5) (jva-ga)
nca-ucca-bhva gat The embodied souls are inherently
graded as higher and lower (mainly three-fold); 6) muktir naijasukhnubhti Liberation is enjoing the bliss befitting to ones
original form; 7) amal bhakti ca tat-sdhanam The means to
secure Liberation is pure devotion to Lord Viu; 8) akdi tritaya
pramam The means of valid knowledge are only three, viz.,
perception, inference and verbal testimony; 9) akhilm nyaika
vedyo hari Lord Viu 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) akara says that the real must necesarly be eternal. On the other
hand, the Buddhists affirm that it has to be necesarly momentary
(kanika). 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 necesarly 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 Skhya 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
prakti, puruas, kla, karma, svabhva, 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:
1
a ) Svatantra or independent (Lord Viu alone)
2
a ) Paratantra or dependent
b) Paratantra is of two kinds:
1
b ) Bhva or existent
2
b ) Abhva or non-existent:
(The three types of abhva are: prag-abhva or anterior,
pradhvabhva or posterior, and sadbhva or absolute
negation).
c) Bhva or existent entities are of two broad types:
1
c ) Cetana or conscious
2
c ) Acetana or not conscious
d) Acetana or unconscious entities are three fold:
1
d ) Nitya or eternal ( the Vedas alone)
2
d ) Nitynitya or partly eternal and partly non-eternal
(the Puras, prakti, kla)
3
d ) Anitya or non-eternal entities, which is divided into:
i) Sasa or created (The world and everything else).
ii)Asasa or uncreated
(mah-tattva, ahakra, buddhi, manas, ten indriyas,
the tanmtras and the paca-bhtas).
e) Cetana or conscious entities can be:
1
e ) Dukha-spa or those associated with sorrows
2
e ) Dukhspa or those who are not so (Lakm Dev)
f) The Dukha-spas are divided in:

1
f ) Vimuktas or released - (devas, is, pits, naras)
2
f ) Dukha-sasth or those abiding with sorrows, which are of
two types:
i) Mukti-yogya or salvable
ii) Mukti-ayogya or unfit for mukti
g) The Mukty-ayogyas can be:
1
g ) Nitya-saarin or ever-transmigrating
2
g ) Tamoyogya or damnable:
(martydhmas, the worst men; daityas, the demons; rkasas
and piacs).
Each one of these tamoyogyas can be:
i) Prptndhatamas or those who are already damnned in
hell.
ii) Stisastha or those who are in sasara but are doomed
to hell.
3) The Concept Of Vieas
a) A special feature of Madhvas philosophy is the category of viea,
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 viea. We do not perceive any difference
between the cloth and its whiteness, but we perceive the viea
(particulariry) of the cloth. In the case of God, the principle of viea
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 viea is used to accomodate the two conflicting
types of texts in the Upaniads - those which speak of Brahman as
nirviea and the saviea texts - by which Madhvcrya tries to
reconcile the concept of monism with that of plurality.
c) The concept of viea seems to be akin to the concept of acintyabhedbheda. This view gains further support from the fact that
Baladeva Vidybhana in his Govinda-bhya reverts to Madhva's
doctrine of viea 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 nanda, although these qualities constitute the essence of

Brahman. This is due to the supralogical functions of viea,
because viea 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 Madhvcrya
as totally identical to r Caitanyas because Madhvcryas
concept of acintya is not so acintya, or inconceivable, as the acintya
of r Caitanya. Madhvas acintya is related to viea, which
reconciles the appearance of difference and identity, while r
1
Caitanyas acintya reconciles real difference with real identity.
1
(O.B.L. Kapoor)
4) Madhva's Doctrine of "Difference"
a) According to Madhvcrya, 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 (dharm-svarpa) of
an object.
b) There are three types of differences:
1
b ) sajtya or difference of things of same category
2
b ) vijtya or difference of things of different categories.
3
b ) svagata or internal distinctions within an organic whole (this
type is not
admitted by Madhva in its absolute sense).
c) r Madhvcrya insists on five absolute and eternal distinctions
between Brahman (vara), jva and jaa, or the inanimate world. He
quotes from Parama-ruti:
jvevara-bhid caiva jaevara-bhid tath
jva-bhedo mitha caiva jaa-jva-bhid tath
mitha ca jaa-bhedo ya prapaco bheda-pacaka
so ya satyo hy andi ca sdi cen nampnuyt
na ca na praytyea na csau bhrnti kalpita
kalpita cen nivartate na csau vinivartate
daita na vidyata iti tasmd ajnin matam
mata hi jninm etan mita trta ca viun
yasmt satyam iti prokta 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 Viu and that,
as such, it is asserted to be real. But Viu alone is Supreme.
II. Epistemology
(From Madhvas Viu-tattva-viniraya)
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 pramas; and since all
the pramas 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
pramas, that experience is thereby rendered invalid.
2) Concept of Upajvaka and Upajya
There are two classes of qualitative proofs, viz, that which is relative
or dependent (upajvaka) and that which is independent (upajvya);
of these the latter must be regarded as stronger. Perception and
inference are independent sources of evidence, and may therefore

be regarded as upajvya, while the scriptural texts are dependent on
perception and inference, and are therefore regarded as upajvaka.
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
upajvya, 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 Saki-Prama
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 pratyaka, direct experience, and by many
scriptural texts. Besides these pramas, Madhvcrya resorts to a
special type of pratyaka called sk, the intuitive perception by
the self, based on our skin or the inner sense-organ of the
embodied self (svarpendriya).
b) The sk is the ultimate criterion of all knowledge and its
validation. This saki is competent enough to test and judge the
data of our experience, gathered from sense-perception, inference
and stras. Even the statements of the stras which support
impersonalistic views of the unreality of this world or the identity of
jva and Brahman, have to be brought before the bar of sk
before they can be accepted without question. When texts like 'tat
tvam asi' and 'neha nnsti' appear to teach the identity of jva 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 upajvya-prama (that
prama which offers subsistence) which, in present case, is the
tested sk-anubhva of the difference between the individual self
and Brahman and of the reality of the world of experience.
c) Some quotations from Madhvcrya:
anubhti virodhena m na kcana Nothing is valid which goes
against ones intuitive knowledge.
na ca anubhava virodhe gamasya prmyam The scripture can
have no validity if it contradicts experience.

IV. Doctrine of tman
1) Essence of Selfhood
a) (From Viu-tattva-vinirya):
Who is a jva 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 jva 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
sasra-bandhana and it is the soul who gets release from this
bondage and enjoys the bliss of the moka or final liberation.
The jvas are the reflected counterparts (pratibimba-aa) of Viu.
The bodies of the jvas, eternally present in Vaikuntha are
transcendental (aprkta). Hence, they are called unconditionedreflected counterparts (nir-updhika-pratibimba-aa). The bodies of
the jvas of the material world are material; therefore, they are
called conditioned-reflected-counterparts (sa-updhika-pratibimbaaa).
A question then arises: What functions like a mirror (updhi) in the
bimba-pratibimba-vda? Verily, without a mirror there cannot be
any reflection. If the jva is a reflection of Brahman there must be
something to act the role of the mirror. What is that updhi?
Madhvcrya explains that the svarpa or the inherent nature of the
jva itself functions as the updhi.
b) The state of the souls in moka - 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 avaraas
(concealment), which are:
1
b ) liga-arra or a subtle body
2
b ) prrabdha-karma or karma which has begun to bear fruit.
3
b ) kma or desire which is the seed of activity.
4
b ) avidy 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 prakti and the distractions of avidy, 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 liga-deha,
prrabdha-karma, etc are just the material environment provided by
God to help the jvas 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. Rmnuja
holds that neither reason nor stra 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 Madhvcrya, souls exist from eternity in the chaos of a
material environment under the supervision of God. At the
conclusion of each mah-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 vsans. 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 cooperation. The termination of this entanglement can only be
achieved by God's grace earned through sdhanas. 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 my, 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-sakalpa.
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, ajna,
kla, guas, etc. Madhva has gone beyond Rmnuja in tracing the
origin of bondage ultimately to Divine will.
e) Madhavcarya calls his theory of the origin of bondage svabhvaajna-vda or the theory of the soul's ignorance of their own true
nature and of their dependence on the Supreme Brahman.
4) Theory of Svarpa-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 tratamya, 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 Madhvas Mahbhrata-ttparya-niraya):
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-dvea. The inferio possess hari-dvea 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 moka. The
mediocre possess both hari-bhakti and hari-dvea and therefore
they do not rise high nor they fall down. They remain for ever in this
amterial world.
c) Doctrine of jva-traividhya or tripartite classification of souls in this
world:
1) muktiyogya (salvable)
2) nitya-sarin (ever-transmigrating)
3) tamoyogya (damnable)
The doctrine of jva-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 sttvika, rjasa and
tmasa which is rooted in the core of individual nature as stated in
the Bhagavad-gt (17.2-3), is the ultimate base of this theory,
according to Madhvcrya. What is thus ultimate traced to the
essential nature (svabhva) of the selves must indeed be
unalterable. Other verses from Bhagavad-gt supporting his theory
are: BG (14.18), BG (16.5,6,20).
V. Doctrine of Brahman
Jayathrtha, in his Nyya-sudha, gives classical expression to the
metaphysical ideology of the Upaniads, as conceived by
Madhvcrya:
All texts of the Vednta 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 seek It to the exclusion of all else;
5) still others proclaim It as the Self of all, so that it may be
realized as conferring on all else their existence, knowability and
activity.
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 tma, and in the world.
VI. Sdhana-Vicra
1) Freedom and Free Will
a) The question of human freedom and divine control assumes great
importance in philosophy and ethics. Madhvcrya 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 svarpabheda (intrinsic difference of nature among souls).
b) Madhvcrya maintains that the human soul is a real agent in all its
actions. If the soul is not the kart, the injunctions of the stras
with reference to the obtainment of specific results and the moral
law will lose all significance.
c) The acceptance of real agency (karttva) to the soul does not,
however, make the jva and absolutely independent agent.
d) The jva 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
tath 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 haha) which is intrinsic to it.
f) Questions like: "The jva 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?" Madhvcrya says that it is because the
intrinsic diversity of human nature, andi-svarpa-yogyat.
2) General Scheme of Sdhanas
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 stras describe them as leading to one another, in
the following order: 1) freedom from worldly attachment (vairgya)
2) devotion to God (bhakti) 3) study of the stras (ravana) 4)
reflection (manana) 5) meditation ( nididhysana), and 6) direct
realization (skt-kra).
b) Madhva emphazises the point that instruction and guidance of a
competent guru and his grace (prasda) are absolutely necessary for
ravana 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 Madhvcrya, 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) Tratamya 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 jna-yogs 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 Sdhanas to fruition.
f) From Madhva's Gt-ttparya - "Pleased with the initial bhakti of the

jvas 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 praktic bondage. In the released
state also, the jvas remain under the Lord's control imbued with
unalloyed devotion to Him".
g) It is said that Madhvcrya was the first Vaiava philosopher who
has categorically held that the goddess r who holds the unique
position of being nitya-mukta and saman (having semi-parity with
the Lord), remains the most ardent devotee of the Lord from eternity.
He also refers to the existence of eknta-bhaktas, who prefer to be
bhaktas instead of syuja-muktas.
h) Jayatrtha refers to three stages of bhakti in the ascending order:
1) pakva-bhakti or ripe devotion - the means to acquiring
knowledge of God.
ravana and manana just pave the way for it.
2) paripakva-bhakti or riper devotion - the means of direct vision
of the Lord.
Dhyna 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 (aparokajna) is
achieved and the bhakta wins the absolute grace (athyarthaprasda)
i) The two major ingredients of bhakti, according to Madhva:
1) a profound awareness of the Lord's magesty (mahtmya-jna)
2) an inborn magnetic attraction to the Lord (sneha)
j) Conflict between jna and bhakti as the ultimate means of moka
(from Jayatrtha's Nyya-udh):
In the stras, wherever it is stated that jna is the means of
moka, 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 jna
is a costituent factor of bhakti which has been defined as a blend of
knowledge of the Lords majesty coupled with an absorbing love
(sneha) for Him.
k) The steps of spiritual discipline taught by Yoga-stra - yama,
niyama, sana, prayma, pratyhra and dhraa are to be
treated as accessories to dhyna, which is virtually the same as the
state of samadhi or introspection.
l) Madhvcrya distinguishes carefully between dhyna and aparoka.
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 dhyna 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 aparoka is the actual revelation of God - the yogi or
sdhaka 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 ravana, manana and
dhyna, 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) Madhvcryas theory of nanda-tratmya (different levels of bliss)
in moka is a logical conclusion from the hypothesis of svarpabheda (differences in nature) and tratamya (gradation) among the
souls. The main argument of this theory is that since moka is only
the discovery of enjoyment of ones own selfhood, in its pristine
purity and bliss, there is no possibility of exchanging ones
experiences of bliss with anothers, or of its transference to another,
whether wholly or in part. Each souls rests fully satiated and
immersed in the enjoyment of its svarpnanda 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 tratamya
(gradation) of nanda (bliss) in moka. There are highly evolved
souls like Brahm and the other gods whose spiritual perfection
must surely be greater than that of us mortals. The evidence of
stras tell us of super-human sdhanas practiced by some of the
gods and the wide difference in their quality, duration, etc, which are
beyond human conception.
b) Madhvcrya accepts an ascending order of mukti: slokya,
smpya, srpya and syujya, in which each suceeding stage
includes the joy of the preceding step. He says that as syuja carries
with it an element of srpya also, it cannot be equated with aikyam
or monistic liberation.
D Comparison With Other Systems

I. Dvaita versus Viidvaita
1) Madhva is a rank dualist and does not believe in qualified

absolutism. According to Rmnuja 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 (apthaksiddhi) and the
distinctions between substance (dravya) and non-substance
(adravya). He explains the relation of identity and difference by
means of unique particulars (viea) 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) Rmnuja 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 (nanda-tratamya). Rmnuja rejects this.
5) Madhva regards God as only the efficient cause of the world and not
its material cause which is Prakti. God creates the world out of the
stuff of Prakti. Rmnuja regards God as both the efficient and
material cause of the world.
6) While Rmnuja 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:
slokya or residence in the same place with God, smpya or
nearness to God, svrpya or having the external form like that of
God and syujya entering into the body of God and partially sharing
His bliss with Him. Thus, though according to Rmnuja 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 syujya form of liberation can share only partial bliss of Brahman
and cannot become similar to Brahman (Brahma-prakra) 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. Rmnuja rejects this. The doctrine of eternal damnation
is peculiar to Madhvcrya and Jainism in the whole field of Indian
Philosophy.
II. Some Flashes of the Madhvas Dialetic
a) Refutation of Advaitas Theory of Eka-jva-vda:
(from Viu-tattva-vinirnya)
The eka-jva-vda 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 ones 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 Updhi:

(from Updhikhaana)
The monist introduces the concept of updhi to explain that the
Omniscient Brahman becomes the ignorant jva due to updhi, or the
updhi causes ignorance in Brahman.
r Madhvcrya reply: All those who believe in the existence of
Brahman as described in the scriptures agree that Brahman is sarva-j
or Omniscient. Now, how can anybody attribute ignorance to Him to
become the ignorant jva? 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, senseorgans 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 updhi, can very well be ignorant even
though the Brahman is omniscient.
The question then arises: How does the updhi come in contact with
Brahman? Two alternatives are possible: Either it must be due to the
svabhva or the inherent nature of Brahman or it must come in contact
with Brahman due to ajna 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
updhi. If it is accepted that the updhi 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 updhi, because one
has to explain what is the cause of that previous updhi. Therefore this
is a example of the fallacy of anvasth or regress to infinite.
c) Brahman and the Plurality of Jvas:
According to the Advaita-vdis, Brahman, the only Reality, gets
contaminated by infinite number of the updhis and appears as many
souls. If this is accepted to explain the pluralidade of the jvas, then it
will imply necessarily that as long as these souls are in sasrabandhana, even Brahman will get entangled in the same bondage,
because, it is only Brahman, Who, due to the influence of the updhis,
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 updhi 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 updhis and
another sa-upadhika-brahman, who gets contact of updhis and
becomes bound in sasra as jvas.
d) Ajna and Updhi:
Now there are two concepts believed by the monist, viz. ajna and
uphdhi. But can he explain satisfactorily their existence since both are
false? When the advaita-vdin attributes falsity to the updhis, he
must depend upon a prior ajna, because ajna happens to be the
cause of mithytva or falsity. Now can he agree to the prior existence
of ajna as the cause of mitytva? That is also not possible because
the ajna must subsist in something as its support. But ajna cannot
subsist in Brahman, the only One Reality. Therefore they say that the
ajna which affects the jva, resides in him as the support. But it gives
rise to the question: What is the status of he jva? Is he real or
unreal? If real there will result dualism. To avoid this, the monist will
have to state that the jva is none other than Brahman Itself but
contaminated by ajna. 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 Araya of Ajna:
According to the Advaita-vdin, there are three entities: ajna, jva
and mithya-updhi. Then the question is: What is the raya or abode
of ajna? The monists reply is: the jva is the raya of ajna. The
next question then is: What is the status of this jva? And the reply is
ready-made: The jva is Brahman only affected by mithya-upadhi.
Then, What about the cause of the mithya-updhi?, is the further
question. The cause of the mithya-updhi is the ajna, is the ready
reply. r Madhvcrya asks: Do all these questions and answers
solve the basic problem of the exact raya of ajna? Not at all.
Because the existence of the mithya-updhi depends upon the prior
establishment of the ajna; the existence of the jva depends upon
the prior existence of he mitya-updhi; and the establishment of the
ajna depends upon the prior existence of the jva 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 acrya of the Samprdaya is
Jayatrtha. He raised the Dvaita phiposophy to a position of straic
equality with the Advaita and Viidvaita, 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 abara
(commentator on Jamini's works), akarcrya, and his
commentator Vcaspati Mira.
If Madhva's works were not commented by Jayatrtha, they would
never have had prominence in the philosophical world.
He was honored with the title of ikcrya. Even Vysatrtha, the
other great name in the Madhva line, recognized his position.
So complete has been the domination of Jayatrtha'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 ks of Jayatrtha.
Because of his brilliance, he has eclipsed the works of his
predecessors, as Trivikrama Paita, Padmanbha Trtha, Narahari
and others.
Jayatrtha's father was a nobleman of military rank. He, Jayatrtha,
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 Candrabhga 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 Akobhya Trtha. He called
Jayatrtha 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 Jayatrtha, and started learning the stras under
Akobhya Trtha.
Jayatrtha's main litery works are:
a) Nyya-udh - commentary on Madhva's Anuvyakhyana; b)
Tattva-prakik - commentary on Madhva's Brahma-stra-bhya;
c) Prama-paddhati;
d) Vdval;
e) and more seventeen works, most of them as commentary on
Madhva's works.
II. Life and Works of Vysatrtha (1460-1539)
About a century after Jayatrtha came Vysatrtha, 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 Brahmaya Trtha, he got
three a girl and two boys. He had promised to give a second son to
Brahmaya Trtha. This son was Vysatrtha). Not long after his
guru Brahmaya Trtha passed away, and he was sent to study
Advaita, Viidvaita and Mma systems at Kanchipuram. After
this he studied logic and Madhva stras under the celebrated
rpdarja.
Then Vysatrtha was sent by rpadaraja 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
Kadevarya.
Vysatrtha 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 Vidynagar and his samadhi, as well as
that of Jayatrtha, is in Nava-Vrndavana, an island on the
Tugabhadr river near negondi.
The historian Dasgupta stated: "The logical skill and depth of acute
dialectical thinking shown by Vysatrtha stands almost unrivalled in
the whole of Indian thought".
Vysatrtha wrote ten works in all. The most famous of these are: a)
Nyymta, b) Tarkatava and c) Ttparya-candrik.
The work 'Nyymta' was the starting point of a series of brillian
dialectical classics. The challenge thrown out by Vysatrtha in his
book was taken up by Madhusdana Sarasvati, in his 'Advaitasidhi'.
This was, in its turn, criticized by Rmcrya his Taragi (beginning
of the 17th century); which was again criticized by Brahmnanda
Sarasvati, who was, in his turn, refuted by Vanamli Mira.

III. Madhva School and its Institutions
Towards the close of his life, r Madhvcrya had ordained eight
monks (Hikea Trtha, Narasiha, Janrdana, Upendra, Vmana,
Viu (Madhva's brother), Rma and Adhokaja Trtha for the
conduct of worship of r Krishna at his maha in Udupi. These eight
became the founder of the aa-mahas: 1) Palimr, 2) Adamr, 3)
Kpr, 4) Puttige, 5) Sirr, 6) Sode, 7) Kr, and 8) Pejvar
maha.
The svms of the eight mahas hold office as high priests of the
r Ka Maha, 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 Vadirja Svm, in the 16th century.
There are also two other mahs - Bharkee and Bhmanakatte descending from Acyutapraja with Satyatrtha at their head.
Besides these, a group of four itinerant disciples of r Madhvcrya
- Padmanbha, Narahari, Mdhava and Akobhya - founded seperate
mahs. These four mahs were descending together. But after
Jayatrtha it branched of into two and some years later one of these
split again. Then these three mahs are going on now by the names
of: 1) Vysarja maha, 2) Rghavendra Svm maha, and 3)
Uttardi maha. These three mahs now enjoy the status of "Mahatraya" or the three premier Madhva mahs descended from
Jayatrtha.
Although many svms of the Udupi Mahs have made important
contributions to Dvaita literature, actually most of the makers of the
Dvaita Vednta and its literature comes from the Maha-traya, in the
line descended from Jayatrtha.
Part III Kumra Samprdaya

A r Nimbarkcrya
I. His Life
Nothing much for certain is known about the life of r Nimbrka.
Some say that he was born in a Telugo brhmaa family somewhere

on the banks of the Goddvari. According to a different account,
however, he was born in Nimbagrma near Govardhana, and his
parents were Arua and Jayant, or from another source, Jaganntha
and Sarasvat.
Nimbrka is also called Nimbditya or Niyamnanda. The name
Nimbrka 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 Nimbrka 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 Rmnuja and before Madhvcrya.
Nimbrka was a naihika brahmaci 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 Vaiava religion wherever he
went. Later on he stayed for some years in Naimiarnya.
The tradition says that the Supreme Lord as Havatra taught
transcendental knowledge to the four Kumras, who imparted to
Nrada Muni who, in his turn, personally instructed Nimbrka. In his
writings, Nimbrka refers to Nrada Muni as his guru.
II. Nimbrkas Literary Work and Others
Nimbrkcrya wrote a short commentary on Vednta Stra called
Vednta-prijta-saurabha. He composed also a small work
containing ten stanzas called Daa-loki. In these verses Nimbrka
affirms that Brahman is r Ka, and He is to be meditated upon
at all times. Devotion to him is the highest sdhana, and the object
of meditation is not Ka alone, rather r r Rdh-Ka.
Nimbarkcrya also wrote some other compositions as r Kastava-rja and Madhva-mukha-mardana.
Nimbrka's immediate disciple rnivsa wrote a commentary on
Vednta-prijta-saurabha called Vednta-kaustubha, on which
Keava Kmri (31st in his disciplic succession) wrote his
Kaustubha-prabh. Puruottamcrya (3rd after Nimbrka)
commented on the Daa-sloki in his Vednta-ratna-majus.
B Nimbrkas Svabhvika-Bhedbheda-Vda
I. General Aspects
1) Different Types of Bhedbheda:
Some other philosophers presented previously to Nimbrka different
conceptions of bhedbheda as Auulomi, Ydavapraka and
Bhskara (996-1061).
Bhskaras bhedbheda, for example, is called aupdhikabhedbheda because, to him, abheda, non-difference, is real and
eternal, while bheda, difference, is unreal and accidental due to the
updhis (accidental predicates or 'limiting adjuncts' like body and
the senses), which disappear on the attainment of moka.
2) Nirgua Versus Sagua Texts:
a) In the rutis there are some passages which appear to declare the
there is identity between Brahman and the jva. For example, there
are passages like tat tvam asi and aham brahmsmi which appear to
declare the said identity. Certainly there are also passages which
proclaim the distinction between the two; e.g. nityo nityna
cetana cetannm; dv supar sakhy and so on. What is the
truth, whether identity or distinction? And how to reconcile the twofold passages to assert the truth?
b) Nimbrka considers the bheda and abheda statements from the
rutis 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 akara, Rmnuja, 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 Nimbrka, there exists three equally real and co-eternal
realities - Brahman, cit and acit. Brahman is the controller (niyant),
the cit is the enjoyer jva (bhokt) 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
(svarpa-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
avidy, 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 jva 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-nondifference (svabhvika-bhedbheda), 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 Brahman and the souls or the universe are both
equally real, natural and eternal.
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: mumukus 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 bubhukus, or those who hanker after earthly
enjoyment.
The mumukus are of two kinds: bhagavata-bhvpatti, or those who
desire to attain the nature of the Lord; and nija-svaruppatti, or
those who desire to attain their real nature.
The bubhukus also are of two kinds: bhvireyaskah, or those who
hanker after future happiness (going to heaven); and nitya-sasr,
or those who hanker after ordinary earthly enjoymets only.
The muktas are of two kinds: nitya-muktas, or those who are everfree; and baddha-muktas, or those who were in bondage previously ,
but are now free.
The nitya-muktas are of two types: nantaryya, the paraphernalia of
the Lord, for example, the flute, dresses, crown, etc, which are
considered as living beings; and prada, or the eternal associates
of the Lord.
In its turn the baddha-muktas are also of two types: bhagavatabhvpatti, those who have attained supreme bliss consequent on
their attaining the very nature of the Lord; and nija-svarppatti,
those who are content with the bliss consequent on their attaining
their own nature.
3) Process of Attaining Moka:
A man desirous of salvation approaches a guru, and follow the
sdhanas as directed by him; this has the effect of pleasing the Lord,
Who Himself frees him the shackles of avidy 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 (prrabdha-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-yna described in the
Upaniads) 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) Sdhanas:
There are five types of sdhanas, according to Nimbrka. 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) jna, or knowledge about God.
c) meditation on the Lord.
d) prpatti, self-surrender to the Lord
e) gurpasatti, self-surrender to the guru.
5) Theology:
The eternal relation between God and men, according to Nimbrka, 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 Nimbrka is Gopla-Ka the
cowerd Ka, brought up in the house of Nandagopa, engaged in
playful pastimes with the gops, and attended by r Rdh.
Therefore the object of worship in Nimbrka sampradya is r r
Rdh-Ka.
III. Some Comparisons to r Caitanyas philosophy
a) Gauya philosophy agrees with Nimbrka in many points. Both give
equal importance to identity and difference. The concept of
svabhvik is acceptable in the sense that both difference and
identity are real. Also Nimbrka, for his side, in his commentary on
Vednta-stra, suggests that the simultaneous presence of identity
and difference is due to the acintya-akti of Brahman.
b) If there is svabhvik-bhedbheda between Brahman and jva, the
impurities and imperfections of the jva 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 jvas, who are by nature limited in their knowledge
and power. But Brahman is not affected at all by the impurities and
imperfections of the jvas, therefore this relation is not only
svabhvik but acintya.
c) Nimbrkcrya considers acit, the insentient potency of Brahman, of

three types: 1) prakta (product of prakti), 2) aprakta (not a
product of prakti) and 3) kla (time). This acit-aprakta refers to
the material cause of everything that exists in the spiritual world
the Supreme dhma of the Lord, including the bodies, dresses,
ornaments, etc. of the Lord and his associates. But for the Gauyas,
the Lord is not different from His body, paraphernalia, and
everything else in the dhma.
???IV Viidvaita Versus Svabhvik -Bhedbheda
1)
Points of Dissimilarity:
Rmnujas Viidvaita
a) The highest reality is Viu.
No mention of Ka and Rdh.
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.
Nimbrkas Svabhvika-Bhedbheda
The highest reality is Ka, accompanied by Rdh.
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 jvanmukti.
g) The grace of the Lord is an essential condition of salvation.
Part IV Rudra Samprdaya
A Early Period
I. r Viusvm
r Visunsvm is the founder acrya of the Rudra Samprdaya

which is supposed to be the oldest of the four recognized Vaiava
samprdayas. 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
Vednta-stra, Sarvaja-sukta, quoted by rdhra Svm in his
commentaries on Viu Pura and rmad- Bhagavatam.
An important consideration is that Bilvamagala hakura who was a
younger contemporary of akarcrya belonged to the Viusvm
samprdaya after his conversion to Vaiavism. So for this we
conclude that r Viusvm was the earliest of all Vaiava
acryas.
Although technically Vallabhcrya religion belongs to Viusvm
line, we hardly find reference about the acrya in the main books of
that sect
The worshipable deity of in this line is Lord r Nsihadeva.
1) The Three Viusvms:
rla Bhaktisidhnta Sarasvati hakura give us some more
information. There were three acryas bearing the same name of
Viusvm in that line, he says. The first one was Adi Viusvm
and he is said to born about the 3rd century BC. His father was a
minister in the Paya country. The Payam king along with him
went to Puri and they rediscovered the deities of Jaganntha,
Bladeva 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. r Viusvm was the first Vaiava to
adopt Tridaa Sannyasa and he had seven hundred sannyasi
disciples. It was he who introduced the aottara-ata-nmi
sannysa (108 designations of sannyasi), including the daa-nmis
which was adopted by akarcrya. After some time this line
became practically extinct.
Then, Raja Gopla Viusvm revived the old Viusvm sect in
the beginning of the 9th century, rla Bhaktisidhnta says. He
began an active propaganda with renewed enthusiasm. He installed
the Varadarja temple in Kci, the famous Ranchorlal in Dvrak,
and some other deities in different trthas. The uddhdvaita
system of Viusvm again came to prominence, and the leader
was this Viusvm king. This revival of the Vaiavism took place
just after the demise of akarcrya.
The third and last revival of this line came under Andhra Viusvm
in the 14th century and Vallabhcrya would possibly be an effect or
consequence of this phase.
It is said that after the disappearance of r Viusvm, the aivite

community tried to misappropriate Viusvms Sarvaja-sukta
which they modified to a great extent to suit their concepts.
II. rdhra Svm

One of the most important names in the Viusvm line is the
famous rdhra Svm. On account of his commentary on rmad
Bhagavatam, r Caitanya Mahprabhu accepted it as the most
authentic, and introduced it as such in His school. rla Jva
Gosvm not only mentions rdhra Svm among those whose
writings influenced him in forming the Gauya system of
philosophy, but called him the defender of bhakti in the beginning
of his Krama-sandarba, which is the further elaboration of rdhra
Svm's commentary. Another authentic writer of the Gauya
system, rla Visvantha Cakravati, offers allegiance to rdhra
Svm in the beginning of his commentary Sarrtha-darin on
rmad-Bhagavatam. rla Rpa Gosvm also quotes several
slokas from him and his godbrother Lakmidhra in his Padyavali. It
is therefore quite obvious that rdhra Svm's writings greatly
influenced the Gauya thought.
There are some controversies about rdhra Svms affiliation.
Some take him as an impersonalist, as the Madhvas followers, but
this view is unjustified, since he criticizes the Myvdi philosophy
throughout his writings, such as his Bhavarta-dipika, commentary on
rmad Bhagavatam, Subodhin, commentary on Bhagavad-gt,
and tma-praka, on Viu Pura. rdhra Svm accepted the
Pacaratra literature while akarcrya was hostile to it.
The proofs that rdhra Svm belongs to Viusvm
samprdaya is that he accepts Rudra as the original founder of the
his system and r Narasihadeva, the official Deity. He also wrote a
poem called Vraja-vihara dealing with the love of Ka and the
gops, which had some verses included in Rpa Gosvm's
Padyavali. The same theme was the subject of the Bilvamangala's
Ka Karnmta, which belongs to the same line.
There is nevertheless some difficulty in establishing rdhra
Svms position. Vallabhcrya and his followers although
theoretically identified with Viusvm line do not accept him.
Vallabhcrya flourished in the 16th century whereas rdhra
Svm lived in the 14th century, and Viusvm was established
long before. The Vallabhcrya sect is not a direct continuation of
Viusvms line but a branch of it, so that it might differ from
rdhar Svm or from the main line.
B r Vallabhcrya (1481-1533)
I. His Life
Vallabhcrya was born in a family of brhmaas from South India in
a village near Benares. His forefathers are said to have performed
one hundred soma-yajs. He was delivered from the womb in the
seventh month underneath a tree, when Lakmana Bhaa, 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 Viucitta, 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, Vallabhcrya started on his first
pilgrimage and also started initiating disciples. Hearing of a
disputation in the court of the king of Vidynagara he proceeded to
the place along with some of his disciples, carrying the rmad
Bhagavatam and a alagrma sila with him.
The debate at Vidynagara was about the nature of Brahman nirviea or saviea. There Vallabhcrya defeated the great
myvdi Vidytrtha after a discussion which lasted for many days.
In that discussion was also present the great acrya from Madhva
sampradya, Vysatrtha, who was the paita and guru of the
court.
From Vidynagara, he moved towards many places in the south like
Kci, Cidambaram, Ramevaram, etc. Then he went northwards
visiting many trthas and towns.
In many occassions he was received with the great respect by the
local kings. He visited Udupi, Gokara, Pandharpur, Nasik, Mahur,
Vndvana and then proceeded to the extreme West to Dvrak.
From there he went to Badrinth via Kuruketra and Haridwar. Then
downwards to Allahabad, Benares, Gaya and finally Puri, where he
met r Caitanya Mahprabhu. Then he proceeded again to
Dvrak, then to Puskar, Vndvana and again to Badrinth.
Returning to Benares he married Mah-Lakm. Afterwards he did
another trip to Dvrak, Badrinth and Vndvana, and when he
returned again to Benares he performed a great soma-yaj.
Vallabhcrya had two sons Gopntha and Vihalantha. 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.
Gopntha, who was very young at that time was appointed his
sucessor but it happened that he died soon. Then Vihalantha was
the actual sucessor of his father.
II. Vallabhcrya's Works
r 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) Tattvrtha-dipa-nibandha it contains three parts: The first
explains
Bhagavad-gt, the second gives a comparative study of other
philosophies,
and the third explains rmad-Bhagavatam.
2) Au-bhya commentary on Vednta-stra, but incomplete.
The remaining
portion was supplied by his son Vihalavatha.
3) Purva-Mmns-bhya commentary on the Jaimini-stras.
4) Subodhini commentary on rmad-Bhagavatam (also
incomplete).
5) oaa Granthas groups of sixteen books containing the
essence of
Vallabhas teachings.
C uddhdvaita Philosophy
I. Basic Philosophical Points
a) According to r Vallabhcrya's doctrine of uddhdvaita (Pure
Non-Dualism), Brahman is a pure unity, free from My. It is also
free from the three kinds of differences known as svajtya-bheda,
vijtya-bheda and svagata-bheda. It is omniscient and omnipotent
and possesses an infinite number of attributes. It has marvellous
powers (aivarya) by virtue of which it can even hold together things
or attributes which are mutually opposed. Thus, it is bothe qualified
(sagua) and unqualified (nirgua).
b) Vallabhcrya accepts four works as authority: 1) The Vedas, 2)
Bhagavad- gt, 3) Vednta-stra, 4) rmad-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 Gt; those in the
Gt in the light of the Vednta-stra; those in the Vednta-stra in
the rmad-Bhagavatam. Vednta-stra is a commentary on the
Upaniads, and rmad-Bhagavatam is considered a commentary
on Gt, but also rmad-Bhagavatam explains and develops all the
points of the Vednta-stra. rmad Bhagavatam enjoys the most
important position in the uddhdvaita system.
II. Two Types of Brahman
a) Parabrahman - the highest entity is Brahman, Who is sat, cit,
nanda and rasa, and is identified with r Ka. He is devoid of
worldly qualities; the negation of qualities in Brahman, mentioned in
the Upaniads, refer to the absence of material qualities in Him. He
possesses a spiritual body made up of nanda, 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 ll. Again, He does not undergo any change
even when He transforms Himself in this world.
b) Akara-Brahman - Next to and lower than Parabrahman is Akara
(immutable) Brahman. He possesses sat, cit and limited nanda. He
is the dhma or abode of Parabrahman. He appears in this world as
antarymi and avatras. He appears in the forms of prakti (matter)
and purua (soul); and this prakti develops through different stages
into the universe, and is therefore called the cause of all causes.
III. Jvas and the World
1) Tirobhva and virbhva:
a) Jvas and the world are identical with Brahman. Jva 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 (virbhva) and
disappearance (tirobhva) of Brahman in these forms.
b) Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause of jva and the
world, manifesting itself in these forms simply for the purpose of
ll. In doing so, It does not undergo any change in essence. It is just
like snake forming itself into coil.
2) The Jvas:
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 aa (part) of Brahman and is
eternal.
b) With a view to enjoing ll, the Lord suppressed the element nanda
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 jvas:
1
c ) uddha (pure) those which its divine qualities, such as
aivarya, are not
obscured by avidy.
2
c ) sasrin those which its divine qualities are obscured by the
will of the
Lord, and come in contact with avidy, identifying themselves
with the
gross and subtle bodies.
3
c ) mukta those who, by the will of the Lord, are freed from
bondage by
vidy and bhakti.
d) The sasrin souls can be grouped into three classes:
1
d ) pravha - those that are busy with worldy matters.
2
d ) maryda - those that follow the Vedic parth according to the
letter of
the Vedas
3
d ) pui - 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 nanda are latent.
c) The Lord has created the universe out of His own self for the sake of
ll 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 avidy which is the root cause of the
ideas of "I" and "mine".
d) Sasra, which is solely made up of ahant (I-ness or egoism) and
mamat (my-ness or the idea of pleasure), has to be destroyed by
means of knowledge, devotion, etc.
IV. Moka
1) Concept of Sarvtma-bhva:
a) He who attains the knowledge of Brahman and realizes that
everything in this world is Brahman, after attaining moka, he is
absorbed in Akara Brahman, and not in Parabrahman or Pra
Puruottama. But if the knowledge of Brahman is associated with
devotion, the knowing devotee is absorbed in Pra Puruottama.
b) The doctrine of regarding the Lord as everything is called sarvtmabhva (all-in-oneness), which is different from the sarvtma-bhva of
the monists (jnis) which is 'one-in-allness' or seeing Brahman in all
things. Yet the devotees see everything in Ka. The gops
possessed this attitude in highest degree, and Lord Ka had
therefore to remain quite obedient to them. The experience of
svarpnanda which is definetly superior to that of brahmnanda is,
therefore, the highest conception of moka.
2) Concept of Pui:
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-ll, 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 pui. The best
example of pui is found in the case of the gops in Vndvana.
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) Pui and maryda:

a) In maryda-mrga, one follows the dictates of the Vedas (yajs,etc)
and practices different types of bhakti, such as ravana, etc, until he
begins to love the Lord, who, taking his efforts into consederation,
grants him syujya mukti, or merging into the body of the Lord.
In pui-mrga, however, through the operation of divine grace only,
one starts with loving the Lord and then he practices ravana, etc
out of that love, and not with a view to generating it.
b) The maryda-mrga is open only to the males of the first three
classes - brhmaas, katriyas and vaiyas; while pui-mrga is
open to all without consederation. The followers of the pui-mrga
worship the Lord, not because He is the Paramtma but because
they ardenly love Him. The Lord is called Gop-jana-vallabha, a term
which is very significant in this system. The gops are the pioneers
in this line, and others who follow them enjoy the same divine bliss.
One who follows the pui-mrga aspires to be a gop 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 arana-mantra - r Ka aranam mama,
and repeats another mantra (which is said to be given by r Ka
to Vallabhcrya) in front of the deity. The guru normally is an
descendent of Vallabhcrya. The mantra says that everyone
entering in the pui-mrga is required to dedicate themselves and
their belongings to Ka 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
Ka like the gops worshiping Ka, and in reading or hearing
stories about Ka. 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-ll of the Lord and of enjoying
bhajana-ll, while others simply get syujya.
d) If for any reason this kind of seva is not possible, one should not be
dissappointed. r Vallabhcrya 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 r
Nthaj, whose shrine is situated in Nthadwara, Rajastan. r
Nthaj is the embodiment of the twelve skandhas of Bhagavatam.
The tenth skandha is identified with the head. r Nthaj
represents the highest form of the Lord known as Pra
Puruottama. All other Deities represent the vibhtis (powers) and
the vyhas (manifestations), and not the highest form.
b) Although rmat Rdhr is worshipped in the company of
Ka in this sampradya, She does not enjoy as much proeminence
as She does in the Gauyas.
Part IV Brahma-Madhva-Gauya-Samprdaya
A Doctrine Of Acintya-Bhedbheda
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) ankara 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 updhis. Since the updhis are of the
nature of illusion and dont 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
r Caitanya, therefore, lies in the inconceivable power (acintyaakti) of God, by which the concepts of identity and difference are
transcended and reconciled ina higher synthesis.
f) As Paramtma He is the immanent regulator and observer of the
actions of the finite souls, and the unifier of all existing things; as
Bhagavn 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-akti. 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 bhedbheda is implied also to the concept of akti which is a
basic concept in r Caitanyas philosophy. akti 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 aktis is acintya bhedbheda,
inconceivable simultaneous identity and difference.
i) If there was absolute identity between Brahman and the jvas, and
Brahman and the world, the faults and imperfections of the jvas
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 jvas and the world as illusory, as ankara 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 ruti texts
which clearly distinguish the jvas and the world from Brahman.)
j) If Brahman and Its aktis are regarded absolutely different, as
Madhva did, that would give rise to dualism and would contradict the
principle of oness stressed in the stras (tattva yad jnam
advayam).
k) The relation between God and His aktis 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
akti. For, in the case of God, the part is not merely a part and the
akti is not merely a akti.The part and the whole, the akti and the
aktimn (the possessor of akti), interpenetrate and form an
undivided whole.
l) God is essentially advaya jna-tattva, though not a pure identity.
He appears in many forms and yet He is One; His ll, 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 r Caitanya school
is distinct from the concept of anirvacanya (indescribable) in the
Advaita-vednta of ankara.
Anirvacanya is applicable to my 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 akti and aktimn either in the
transcendental realm or even in this world. It applies to Brahman,
His associates (parikaras), and abodes (dhmas), as well as to jvaakti and my-akti.
n) Anirvacanya is a negative concept, while acintya is a positive
concept. Anirvacanya 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 Gauya Vaiavism.i
Gauya Vaiavism, by A.N. Chatterjee1
There are basically two distinguishing factors that separate the
Gauya school from other Vaiava schools. Firstly, you have the
doctrine of acintya-bhedbheda the inconceivable difference and
non-difference between God and His energies. This was, according
the Gauyas, the original Vedic doctrine.
After being distorted by Buddha and then di akarcrya, it was

reinstated, at least partially, by Rmnuja, who taught
Viidvaita. akara had claimed oneness, that the living energy
Gods energy was one with God. But Rmnuja 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 Madhvcrya, 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.
akara preached one extreme. Madhva preached the other. r
Caitanya appeared with the perfect balance.
But the most distinctive feature of Gauya Vaiava philosophy,
especially as opposed to other Vaiava 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 Vaiava schools.
And bhakti is most developed when understood in terms of bhaktirasa, or relationship with God in a personal and loving way. There are
five basic relationships anta, dsya, sakhya, vtsalya, and
mdhurya, and also there are seven secondary relationships.
In all of the worlds 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
Gauyas is this very developed conception of madhrya-rasa how
one can emulate the highest devotee in the spiritual world, the
maidservant, the gop, 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 ones life after
an inhabitant of Vraja. The inner meditation. This is called rgnugbhakti, 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 Gauya literature on the subject: Govinda-llmta,
Caitanya-Caritmta, Ujjvala-nlamai, Bhakti-rasmta-sindhu.
There are so many. After a thorough study of these books, one can
conclude: In order to best undestand mdhurya-rasa, the ideal of
Rd and her love for Ka must be introduced.
The culmination of the Gauya Vaiava experience is the service of
r Rdh. Exactly how this is done is revealed in the esoterica of

the tradition. r Caitanya has stated that as a young man yearns
for his sweetheart, in the same manner, the human soul must yearn
for Ka. Rdhris position is the highest and the devotee seeks
to follow in her mdhurya-bhva.
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.
rmat Rdhr experiences both. She is the example the very
emblem of these two ultimate experiences in God realization. r
Caitanya Mahprabhu, too, in the mood of Rdhr, 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 Gauya Vaiavism.
III. Some Particular Points of the Gauya Philosophy and
Religion
not Found in Other Vaiava Sects:
1)rmad-Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on Vednta-stra,
and it is the Supreme prama. Because the principal Upaniads
and Vednta-stra do not deal explicitly with the Bhagavn aspect of
the Absolute truth, and particularly with Lord Ka, they are not
given so much importance.
2) Kas tu Bhagavn svayam is the definite axiom for the
Gauyas.
3) The Supreme Brahman is the supreme aktiman and possesses
three aktis: antarag, bahirag and taasth. The antarag-akti
has three divisions in it: sandhin, savit and hldin aktis.
4) The inter-relationship between Para-Brahman, individual souls and
this world is explained solely in terms of the acintya-akti of the
Lord. Para-Brahman is inconceivably and simultaneously one and
different from His akti. This concept is extended and applied to
many different aspects of this system. Therefore, the Gauya
philosophy is known as acintya-bhedbheda-vda.
5) For the Gauyas, bhakti is the bhajana or seva loving service to
the Lord, not merely upsana or meditation. In fact no sdhana can
achieve its perfection (moka) 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 moka is the supreme pururtha.
8) A Vaiava has a status superior to any vara or rama.
9) r Caitanya Mahprabhu is directly the combined forms of r r

Rdh and Ka. He is the Kali-yuga avatra and the bestower of
Ka-prema in the form of gop-bhva or madhurya-rasa.
10) Worship of the Lord in His aivarya aspect according to the
principles of vaidhi-bhakti, leads the devotee to liberation in
Vaikuntha, Dvarka or Mahur. But the Lord in His madhurya aspect
in Goloka is attained only by those following rga-mrga.
11) Ektmya or syuja-mukti cannot be acchived by only jna, or
meditation, or else. Moka 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 Vndvana. In Mahur, Dvrak and
Ayodhy-dhma these three rasas are also found but in a mixed
state, not pure.
13) No incarnation other than r Ka gives liberation to the demons
when He kills them.
14) Only the Gauyas affirm the superexcellence of the loving
sentiment in the mood of seperation (viraha or vipralamba).
15) Parakya-rasa is the special feature in the dealings between Ka
and the gops.
Appendix I Comparative Analysis Of The

Vaiava Schools ii Dr. Manju Dube2
I. Relation Among God, World and the Souls
1) Differences between Vallabhas Pure-Monism and Rmnujas
Qualified Monism regarding the relation between God, souls and the
world:
a) Rmnuja 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 Vallabhas Pure Monism and Madhvas Dualism:
While Vallabha regards the world and the souls as non-different from
Brahman, to Madhva they are totally different.
3) Nimbrkas view of bhedbheda is different from the viitdvaita of
Rmnuja. The main point of distinction between them is that while
according to Rmnuja difference is an attribute of unity, for

Nimbrka both identity and difference have equal status in reality.
Difference is not secondary in his view.
4) Nimbrkas view is clearly different from Vallabhas and there is no
point of agreement between them. Vallabha is the advocate of puremonism and difference is not real according to him.
5) Nimbrkas assertion of two realities (independent and dependent)
is not acceptable to Jva Gosvm. 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 aktis of God. He realizes
the difficulty of reconciling the relation of both identity and
difference between akti and possessor of akti but (instead of
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) Vallabhas system of Pure-Monism also accepts the souls and matter
as real and as the manifestations of Gods attributes. He has
accepted God as the abode of contradictory attributes. This doctrine
is established on the basis of rutis but it is not conceivable by the
limited human reason.
8) Nimbrka 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) r Caitanya and His followers recognize the supralogical and
inconceivable nature of the relation of bhedbheda 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 Vaiava thinkers except Madhva have accepted God as both the
efficient and material cause of the world. Madhva considers the idea
of Rmnuja (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 stras in accordance with his view
which deny the material causality of God. God is the efficient cause
and prakti is the material cause of the world.
b) To Rmnuja 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.
Rmnuja 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) Nimbrka holds that world is a transformation of Gods akti 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) r Caitanya holds that the world is a modification of Gods myakti which is an external power of God. Its transformation does not
affect Gods essential nature. It stands in relation of unthinkable
difference in non-difference to God. Although world is an effect of
God through His my-akti essentially He remains transcendent
and immutable.
1) Some inconsistencies and logical dificulties of the material
causality of the world:
a) Rmnuja 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 Gods
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 Rmnujas 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 Gods
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 Gos
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) Nimbrka tries to solve the difficulty by holding that Gods akti is
transformed into the world. The creation of the world involves a real
transformation of its material cause, but this transformation relates
to Gods kti 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 prakti as the mat. cause. Madhva theory
is consistent with the concept of an immutable God but his position
regarding prakti as the material cause has its own difficulties.
While others vaiava 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 Gods supremacy.
e) r Caitanyas view seems to make a definite improvement on the
views of other vaiava thinkers. He regards the world as real
transformation of Gods my-akti which is an external power of
God and Gods essence is not affected by this. r Caitanya has
realized the logical inconceivability of the doctrine that Deity
escapes change when His akti 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 myakti. This relation can be realized only in ones own intuitive
experience. Although the whole philosophy of Vaiavism 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.
r Caitanya had the whole tradition behind Him and His doctrine of
acintya-bhedbheda 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. r 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 Rmnuja the souls and the world are vieana or attribute
of God, r Caitanya takes them as aktis of God. Secondly while
Rmnuja regards souls and the world as two different things, the
Gauyas puts them under the single category of aktis.
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 Gauyas say that the soul are the aktis 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 aktis cannot be absolutely identical with
Him even in liberation.
d) Jva Gosvm says that the relation of identity-in-difference
between Brahman and the world, or between Brahman and jva,
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) Rmnuja 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 Rmnuja 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
Gods bliss becomes manifest in it. Both Rmnuja and Madhva
reject this view and they hold that autva of soul remains unaltered
in both states.
g) Nimbrka and r Caitanya both accept bedhbheda but while
Nimbrka puts the soul under the category of dependent reality,

r Caitanya explains it as the manifestation of Gods akti. Both of
them reject Rmnujas view of modification, Vallabhas view of
essential identity, and Madhvas view of pure dualism between soul
and God.
IV. Some difficulties
a) Rmnuja 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.
Rmnuja 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 Rmnujas 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 Rmnujas 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 Gods 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 Rmnuja 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 Vallabhas 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) Nimbrka classifies Reality into two, Independent and dependent.

He maintains the relation of both bheda and abheda between God
and souls. But the view of bhedbheda sounds contradictory to our
logical understanding.
e) r Caitanya made an improvement on the views of other thinkers
by holding that souls and matter are the aktis of God and are
inseparable from Him.
He realized the practical unthinkability of the doctrine of bhedbheda
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 ruti. 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
andi.
b) Vallabha has attributed the presence of evil to Gods will. It is a part
of Divine Ll; an expression of His joyous activity. Both good and
evil are necessary in the world play to suit His purpose. Thus unlike
other vaiavas who attribute evil to karma, etc. Vallabha regards it
an integral part of His divine ll.
VI. karma, jna and bhakti
a) Vallabha and Rmnuja 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 Gauyas say that bhakti is not in need of jna and karma.
b) Thus bhakti is said to be the direct pathway to perfection and karma
and jna are regarded as auxiliaries to bhakti. But the degree of
importance attached to karma and jna is different according to
each thinker.
Rmnuja has regarded karma and jna as equally important. To him
the two are independent. Desinterested performance of duty is a
necessary precondition for the realization of tma.
But Madhva regarded karma as less important than jna. 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 jna as necessary for spiritual
progression and as auxilliary to each other.
d) Nimbarka holds that karma is subordinate to jna for the
attainment of jna one must perform actions. The effects of karmas
are destroyed through knowledge.
e) r Caitanyas views is different. He holds that bhakti is independent
to karma and jna. Unlike karma and jna, bhakti is capable of
leading to the right goal independently.
f) Vallabha and r Caitanya have considered bhakti both a means and
an end in itself.
Appendix II The Lives Of The lvrs

I. Poygai, Bhtam and Pey lvr
Poygai, Bhtam and Pey were contemporaneous. They are the most
ancient of the lvrs.
Poygai lvr, otherwise known as Saro-Muni, took birth from a golden
lotus-flower in a tank situated within the holy Viu temple of
Kacipuram. Born in the Dvpara Age, Siddrtha year, he as actually a
partial manifestation of Lord Vius conchshell, the Pacajanya.
Bhtam lvr was born the following day in Mallpura, out of a
Mdhavi blossom. He manifested from Lord Vius club, the
Kaumodaki.
Pey lvr took birth from a red lotus-flower growing in the holy well of
the di-Keava-Peruml temple, in Mayura-puri. People called him
Bhrntha-yogi because his love for God made him appear demented.
He was empowered by Mah-Vius sword, the Nandaka, and his birth
was one day after Bhtams. Thus, Poygai was born on Tuesday,
Bhtam 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.
Bhtam lvr 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 lvrs chimed.
If two can sit, three can stand, rejoined Pey.
Poygai and Bhtam 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 lvrs 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
Nryaa, Who cannot bear being separated from His devotes even for
a moment, appeared to them. The lvrs were dazzled by His majesty
and splendour. In great ecstasy, Poygai compose his Tiruvanddi, by
defining God as represented in the manifested universe. Bhtam sang
the second Tiruvnddi, which describes the Lord as Nryaa; Pey
sang the third, adding r to Nryaa. 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 Lords grace, the lvrs realized them all, even while
tarrying on Earth.
II. Tirumaliai-lvr
According to some scriptures, Tirumaliai lived in Dvpara Yuga. He is
also known as Bhakti-sra, the essence of love of God.
His birth was quite unusual. Bhrgava si, his father, was a very
advanced devotee of Lord Nryaa. 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 Viu personally came to save His devotee. Touching the babys
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
wouldnt 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 Tirumaliai 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 Kanikannar. Kani-kannar would later on become Tirumaliais faithful
disciple and companion.
At the age of 7 years old, Tirumaiai was studying all scriptures and
systems of philosophy. While studying the Mahbhrata, he came
across one verse which says: The final conclusion is that Nryaa
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 lvr,Can you grant me
moka? No, only Nryaa can do it, replied Lord iva. Can you
prolong for one day the life of a person who is destined to die?, asked
the saint. That depends on the persons karma, replied iva. Then
Tirumaiai 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 lvr, and Lord iva left the place
in shame.
One day the three lvrs Poygai, Pey and Bhtam in the course of
their pilgrimage they came near the location were Tirumaliai 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
Tirumaliai. The lvrs saidPrabhu, are you well? . Immediately
Tirumaliai replied: Poygai! Pey! Bhtam! 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 lvrs left for another
pilgrimage.
Tirumaliai went to visit Lord Varada-rja, the famous Deity of
Kacipuram. Hearing that the lvr was there, Kani-kannan, who was
born by the lvrs 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 Tirumaliai
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-Rya
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 lvars disciple, who come everyday to beg alms in
the palace.
The King awaited Kani-kannans coming and then begged him to invite
his master to his palace. Impossible, sir, replied the devotee,my
master doesnt go to any mans 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. Tirumaliai said that he could not leave this place
and leave his Lord Varada-rja behind. Therefore, he decided to invite
the Deity to come with them. So he did, and the Lord agreed.
As the Lord, the lvr and his disciple left King Pallava-rjas country,
all the yogs, 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 Tirumaliai 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 Kaci.
After some time, the lvr decided to visit Lord Arvamudan 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 Tirumaliai was travelling, and remained
in that position. Arriving at his destination, the lvr went at once to
see Lord Arvamudan. In ecstasy he composed two poems called

Tiruvanddi and Tirucchandaviruttam. In one of the verses he says:
Let me see You rise and speak. Arvamudan, Who is Lord Viu lying
down on ea, then began rising up. Then the lvar immediately
stopped the rising of the Lord by saying: Oh My Lord, pardon me. I
pray to You to stretch Yourself on Your ea 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.
Tirumaliai remained immersed in yoga meditation for 2300 years,
subsisting solely on a little milk. He is said to have lived for 4700 years.
III. Nammlvr and Madhurakavi-lvr
In rmad-Bhagavatam, canto XI, chapter 5, verses 38-40, Nrada
prophesizes the birth of holy saints in Kali Yuga along the banks of the
holy rivers of Dravia-dea (South India). These included the lvrs,
among which Nammlvr became the most prominent for his
devotional writings.
Nammlvr was born in a line of rulers in BC 3102, only 43 days after
the departure of Lord Ka 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 Lords neck had fallen as a divine sign, and
the pujari had presented it to the couple.
From Nammlvrs birth, he never cried, but simply smiled a heavenly
smile and remained wonderfully silent and severe. He would not suck
his mothers 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 boys parents humbly resigned themselves to
the will of God. All the sacraments such as the upanayama were duly
administred to him by his brhmaa parents.
Madhurakavi lvr had already taken his birth before the advent of
Nammlvr. He is said to be an incarnation of Ganea who came to
herald the appearance of Nammlvr.
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
Nammlvr sat in deep meditation.
Seated in padmsana, Nammlvr 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 lvr. He
had found his eternal guide who would lead him to salvation. At that
moment, Lord Viu also revealed Himsel to Nammlvr in all His
divinity, riding on Garuda with Lakmi at His side. Overwhelmed with
ecstasy, the lvrs deep uncontrollable love for his Lord poured from
his heart in the form of four divine songs. These are Tiruviruttam,
Tivairiyam, Periya-Tiruvanddi and Tiruvymoli, which are considered
to be the very essence of the Rg, Yajur, Athrva and Sma Vedas
respectively.
Nammlvr had never tasted the so-called sweets of this earthly world.
From birth he had always relished Lord Ka as his only food, as his
only drink, as his only means of confort.
In the Tiruvymoli 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 yog 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 yog 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 yog could see the dead dog
floating dowatream; yet as he gazed, the dogs 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 Nammlvr.
When Nammlvar 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 Nammlvrs glory and his
works. At the same time, he proclaimed far and wide the eternal truths
embodied in the four Dravia Vedas.
During this time, no one could be declared a poet without having first
passed before a council of three-hundred of the Kings paitas. Some
of these erudite paitas came to hear Nammlvrs growing fame.
They challenged Madhurakavi to defend his master before the council.
The latter agreed and soundly defeated them all, firmly establishing
Nammlvr 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. Kulaekhara lvr

Kulaekhara lvr 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 r Ananta
Padmanbha, Lord Garbhodakay Viu, the main Deity of
Trivandrum. The king is simply Gods 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 Kulaekhara appeared.
King Kulaekhara was born in Kali 27. His father, For long time King
Ddha-vrata was childless. And after intent worship and prayers, Lord
Nryaa sent him a saintly son. His son, Kulaekhara-lvr, is
recognized to be the incarnation of the Kaustubha gem of Lord Viu.
As a katriya 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 Kulaekhara was to become a saint and savior for uplifting
humanity. He was transformed by Gods grace, which started operating
through him. The Lord commanded Vivaksena to administer to the
King the five-fold sacraments called Paca-saskra. 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 stras. This inspired him to compose his master
piece, Mukunda-mla-stotra, by extracting the nectar from all
scriptures.
His worshipable God was Lord Rmacandra, and therefore he selected
the Rmayana for daily recitation.One day there came the passage
where Lord Rma fought alone against 14.000 rakasas. Upon hearing
this, King Kulaekhara, out of devotional ecstasis, became mad with
worry thinking that Lord Rma was fighting alone. Then he commanded
his army to immediately proceed with him to help Lord Rmacandra. 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 Rma, single handed, had already killed all
the rakasas. Upon hearing this, the kings joy was inexpressible.
The daily recitation of the Rmayana went on as usual. Every
important event of Lord Rmacandra ll 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 Rvanas kidnapping of Sita-dev. At once
the Kings 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
Kulaekhara and his army reached the seashore along the
southernmost part of India, which faced Rvanas kingdon, the island
of r Laka. Although hundreds of miles of ocean separated the
continent to the island, King Kulaekhara, 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 Rmacandra and Sita-dev 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 vaiavas had
free access to any part of the palace.
So the ministers conspired against these vaiavas. Some jewellery
was stolen from the Kings Deities and the vaiavas were accused of
the theft.
But King Kulaekharas reaction was free from any suspicion: No!
Never! The lovers of God are incapable of stealing. Its 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 Kings pardon. The King pardoned them.
For a long time King Kulaekhara had the desire to give up his kingdom
and go to r Ragam and simply engage in devotional service unto
the Lord. This desire eventually became unbearable. Hence he
entrusted the kingdom to his son Ddha Vrata and left for Ragaketra.
There he experienced always increasing devotional emotions and
composed the poem Peruml Tirumozhi. Peruml is a title with which
Kulaekhara-lvr is distinguished, by feeling sorrow when God is in
sorrow and happiness when God is happy.
V. Peryi - lvr
Peryi-lvr, also known as Viu Chittar, was born in a high line of
brhmaas in r Villiputur, in the year Kali 16. From early childhood
he intuitively was a pure devotee of Lord Viu.

When meditating on the pastimes of r Ka, he was inspired by
Sudm, the ml-kra, who offered garlands and worshiped Ka
and Blarma when They entered Mathur, on this way to the arena of
Kasa. The lvr then resolved to devote himself to supplying flowers
for the daily worship of Lord Viu in His arc form of Vata-sayin in his
town, r Villiputur.
At that time king Vallabhadeva of Madhurai, met a brahmaa who
spoke a few words to him and awoke the desire for attainning moka.
After that, the king was very eager to know the genuine process of selfrealization. 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 r Villiputur, the lvr had a wonderful dream. His
beloved Deity r Vata-sayin appeared before him and commanded
him to attend the kings court. What?, the astonished lvr
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 kings minister and
invited to speak before the council. The lvr become like Dhruva, who
was touched by the transcendental conch of Lord Viu and
empowered to utter wonderful prayers. Quoting many evidences from
the stras he proved that one who aspires for liberation should
meditate upon and surrender unto the lotus feet of Lord Viu, Who
alone can grant mukti. In fact he simply opened his mouth and the
Lord spoke through him.
Peryi-lvrs 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 lvr, saying: He has revealed to mankind the light that
shines on the very summit of the Vednta. 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 Viu , along with His
entourage, descended personally to that spot to see His devotee being
glorified. Upon beholding His beloved Lord, Peryi-lvr was filled with
ecstatic joy. However, he never allowed his heart to swell with pride.
The lvr 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-lvr composed a devotional poem called Tiruppllandu.
After blessing the king, Peryi-lvr returned home to his devotional
service as gardener of ri 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. l-lvr
l is the only woman among the twelve lvrs. Peryi-lvr was
digging his garden one day when he discovered a child covered in
earth, just as King Jnaka had found Stadev. He named her l.
The year was Kali 97.
Peryi-lvrs sole occupation was daily to present a flower garland to
his deity r Vata-Syin. As time passed, l blossomed into an
attractive maiden. In her fathers 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,
Dont 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-lvr dreamt of Vata-Syin who questioned him why he
had failed to bring his daily garland. The lvra 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-lvr
woke up in amazement.
As l 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. l 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? l 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 Viu. Upon hearing the name of r
Ragantha her heart at once melted, revealing Who was holding her
heart captive.
Peryi-lvr was perplex. That night, however, r Ragantha appeared
in his dream and announced He would propose for his daughters hand
and heart Himself. In r Ragan the Lord manifested His desire to the
head priest, commanding him to journey to r Viliputtur and bring His
fiancee to Him. The priest arranged for l to be brough over great

pomp and made very opulent preparations for the wedding ceremony.
This was conducted, and l embraced her Lord and, before the
eyes of everyone present, merged into the body of Lord Ragantha.
r l is today worshipped in her arc-vigraha in numerous temples
of Viu in South India. The poetry she has written about her
passionate feelings for the Lord remains as well.
VII. Toaraippoi-lvr
Toaraippoi was born in a South Indian brhmaa family in the year
Kali 288. He was named Vipra-Nryaa. Later he became known as
Toiraippoi-lvr, which means the foot-dust of the slaves of the
Lord.
By nature Vipra-Nryaa 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 Ragantha, he resolved to
devote his life to cultivating and suppling tulasi leaves for the Lords
pleasure.
One day a very captivating but mundane woman named Deva-dev,
who was a frequent visitor to the court of King Chola, passed through
the beautiful garden of Vipra-Nryaa and decided to stop and rest
for some time. She noticed how Vipra-Nryaa, 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-devs 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-dev had
accepted. Approaching Vipra-Nryaa 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, VipraNryaa consented.
Deva-dev 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. VipraNyaa 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-nryaa allowed her to do so.
Deva-dev was a mistress of the art of seduction. She easily captured
the brhmaas heart so he could no longer concentrate his mind in his
Deity. Having won the wager, there was no reason for Deva-dev to
remain in that place any longer and she returned to her house. Mad
with lust, Vipra-Nryaa ran after her, sat outside her front door and
submitted himself to all kinds of injuries and indignities.

One day, Lord Ragantha and His consort r passed by that street in
a procession. When Lakm-dev saw Vipra-Nryaa in that condition
She asked Her Lord what had happened to his faithful and dedicated
servant. After Lord Rangantha narrated the story, r demanded that
He help Vipra-Nrya 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-devs door, claiming to be
Vipra-Nryaas servant. He delivered a golden cup to her which she
happily received. The following morning r Raganthas pujari
discovered that the Lords golden cup was missing from the altar. The
king immediately had the pujari and other attendants arrested.
One of Deva-devs 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-Nryaa had given the cup to Deva-dev
and that it now lay hidden under the pillow.
The cup was retrieved and Vipra-Nryaa and Deva-dev were brough
before the king. They naturally denied and participation in the theft,
but on the weight of the evidence against them, Deva-dev was fined
and Vipra-Nryaa was detained for further investigation.
Once again Lakm intervened, requesting Her Lord to stop playing
with His devotee.
That night Lord Ragantha appeared to the king in a dream and said
to him:
Dear king, know My servant Vipra-Nryaa 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-Nryaa release and Devadevs money returned to her. Vipra-Nryaa 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 womens 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 vaiavas. From this he
received the name Toaraippoi, and he served Lord Ragantha
until his final breath.
VIII. Tiruppn-lvr
Tiruppn-lvr 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 cows milk.
Since his childhood, Tiruppn 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, Tiruppn adopted
the profession of musician, a lyre-player.
One day, Tiruppn was seated on the banks of the Kaveri, in r
Ragam, near the temple of Lord Ragantha. 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 Ragantha, Loka Saraga, happen to
come to the river side to fetch water from the river for the daily
abhisheka of the Deities. Tiruppn was seated on the path where the
pujaris would pass carring vessels full of water. Loka Saraga
demanded that he move from there, but Tiruppn did not respond to
his request. He was in devotional trance and unaware of the situation.
Being a brhmaa, Loka Saraga 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.
Tiruppn came ouy from his trance, opened his eyes and at seeing the
enraged brhmaa 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 Saraga felt something strange. Normally Lord
Ragantha 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 brhmaa 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 Ragantha along with His eternal consort
appeared to him and said: How dare you hurt My faithful Tiruppn?
We are sorely offended by you. Then r inquired from the Lord why
He delayed bringing Tiruppn 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 Saraga: You shouldnt think Tiruppn 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 Saraga immediately went to the spot and found Tiruppn
absorbed in meditation. He fell at his feets and begged forgiveness for
injuries both physical and moral. Then he submitted the wish of Lord
Ragantha.
The lvr retreated to a distance and said: Dont touch me. Im low
born and its inadmissible for me to step in the Lord Raganthas
land. But sir, said Loka Saraga, Dont fear. I will carry you on my
shoulders. This is the desire of the Lord. Further resistance will be
desobedience. Then Tiruppn gave up: As the Lord wishes, he said.
Loka Saraga without delay carried the Tiruppn into the Lords shrine.
When he was about to deposit the lvr 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-Adipirn, he composed at that time.
While gazing and staring in astonishment, Tiruppn lvr tarried not on
the Earth to see any other sight, but melted and passed int the Lords
substance, in his 50th year of age.
IX. Tirumangai-lvr
r Tirumangai is the last of the lvrs of the r Sampradya. He was
born in Kali 397 in a udra class family. His name at birth was Nila
(blue) because of Lord Kas color. He is said to be the incarnation of
the bow called arga.
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 vaiava 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 vaiava 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 Kalyans 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-Vallis 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-vaiava 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, r 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 vaiavas 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 kings prison in Kaci. There Lord Varada-rja 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 vaiavas. 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
Kalyans sincerity and once more acted in his favor. By feeding the
vaiavas 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 brhmaa and his wedding
procession; accompanied by His wife and entourage. The brhmaa
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, dont be nervous. Then
the brahmaa asked Kalyan to repeat the eight syllable mantra: om
namo nryaya. 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 brhmaa revealed Himself
as Lord Nryaa with His eternal consort, mounted in Garuda.
Kalyan immedately composed six songs glorifying the Lord. Thus he
became the Tirumangai lvr.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,
Badrinth, Naimiarya, etc. He gained respect and was praised by
all.
The lvr came to visit Lord Rgantha in r Ragam. 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-lvr 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.
Tirumangais 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 altars 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 dont 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 lvrs brother-in-law on the top.
This time r Lakm-dev interfered and requesed the Lord to save
His devotee. Lord Viu sent Garuda with the mission to rescue the
body, join it with the head and give him life.
Returning to r Ragam 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 lvr. 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
lvr. 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.
i1From Vaiavism (Steven J. Rosen)

ii2From Conceptions of God in Vaiava Philosophical Systems

4 Sampradayas by Purusatraya Swami

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Sampradayas by Purusatraya Swami

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Sampradayas by Purusatraya Swami

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Four Sampradayas

I Advaita Vednta of akarcrya (788-820AD)

PART II BRAHM SAMPRDAYA

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

VII. Doctrine of Mukti

PART III KUMRA SAMPRDAYA

PART IV RUDRA SAMPRDAYA

APPENDIX I COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE VAIAVA SCHOOLS 67

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

III. Nammlvr and Madhurakavi-lvr

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

of bhakti unpolluted by karma or jna and service to the devotees.

12- Philosophy of r Madhvcrya, B.N.K. Sharma

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

God is the apara-Brahman, or Lower Brahman.

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

To him, there exist three states of existence: pramrthika,

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

accounted for on the basis of the updhis or limiting adjuncts.

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

for the moment we speak of Brahman, He ceases to be Brahman and

IIThe Decline of Myvda and the Theistic Reaction

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

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

as the Tmrapari, Ktamla, Payasvin, the extremely pious Kaver

born at Manngui in the South Arcot district in 824, and he became a

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

teachings of Yamuncrya to young Rmnuja who was to become the

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

still brief, on the Vednta-stra.

C Viidvaita Vednta Philosophy

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

b) The Concept of Body-Soul Relation

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

consciousness (jna-svarpa). It means that knowledge or

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

V. Knowledge and the External World

a) Jva as Different from Body and Mind

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

e) Jva is Kart and Bhokta

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

f) Theory of Free-Will and Determination

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

and God as ein, the Master of all. This threefold relationship is

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

direct reference is only to the lower Brahman (apara-Brahman), then

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

or the higher and lower. This theory is based primarily on the

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

d) God and His Attributes

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

attributes are also admitted in vara; jna (knowledge, or more

Copyright 2002-2003 by the Respective Owners

explanation of the material causality of Brahman. The Upaniads

Brahman is of the nature of self-luminosity and self proved