1

"Philosophy Of Dvaita Vedanta:

"INTRODUCTION:

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

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

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

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

"The dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is in the sense that both are
functioning at His will, which is the essential condition and sustaining principle that invests them with
their reality and without which they would be but void names and bare possibilities. The dependent reals
(as Madhva admits the plurality of the selves), by their very nature, can have no absolute or unlimited
jurisdiction over one another and are distinct from Brahman. The individual souls and their material
enviornment are not independent. Madhva brings these eternal and uncreated substances under the
power of Supreme Being i.e., God as `svatantra', occupies the central position, with existent realities like
 2

matter and souls keeping their legitimate position under Him. Thus `svatantra' and `paratantra' are the
fundamental presuppositions of Madhva's philosophy which aim at understanding the metaphysical
dependence of all finite reality comprising the `Cetana' and `Acetana' world upon One Infinite,
Indepentent Reality. Here Madhva points out that we have no right to deny reality totheworld of matter
and sousls, simply because they are not independentor do not always exist in the same form. But they
are there, have been there and will be there though ever changing and depending on Brahman.
"
Sri Madhva puts forward the idea of `Bimbapratibimbabhava' (Original and Reflection) to illustrate the
true nature of the relationship between `svatantra' and `paratantra'. The relationship of these two is of
unilateral dependence of all finite reality on the Independent principle, for its existence, knowledge,
knowability, and activity (`satta', pratiti, and `pravrtti'). The relationship is not unreal or reciprocal
dependence rather the world cannot exist without God as it owes its very power of existence,
functioning etc., to God and derives them from Him. The (symbolic) relation of Bimbapratibimbabhava
as conceived by Madhva would be permanent and true of all states of the jivatman and not merely as
passing one, true of samsara alone. There will be no destruction of the Pratibimba so long as the contact
of `upadhi is intact. The function of an Upadhi (medium) is to manifest the Pratibimba. In the present
case, it is the pristine nature of the `Jivasvarupa' itself as `Cit' that would suffice, according to Madhva,
to manifest itself to itself in its true nature of metaphysical dependence on Brahman and of being
endowed with a measure of similarity of attributes (as part of the meaning ofthe word (`pratibimba') with
its Original (Brahman) without calling to aid the services of any external medium (`bahyopadhi').

DOCTORINE OF DIFFERENCE:

It shown that matter, souls and God constitute the three major realities of Madhva's system. The
number of souls is unlimited and the modifications of matter are numerous, in various states. These three
are conceived as distinct entities. The reality of God is of the independent grade. That of the rest is
depedent. Between matter and souls, the former is of a lesser grade of reality. It is only in this sense that
the `degrees' of reality is explained in this system. The reality of things is space and time involves the
differences in name, form, attributes, relations, and tendencies. These manifold differences are generally
classified under these heads : (1) Sajatiya or difference of one thing from others of its own kind, (2)
Vijatiya or difference from those of another kind, and (3) Svagata or internal distinctions within "an
organic whole". The last one is not admitted by Madhva in its absolute sense. In the sphere of other two
differences he has given a scheme of "fivefold Difference" (`Pancabheda')

(1) the distinction between Isvara and Jiva

(2) the distinction between Isvara and Jada (prakrti)
(3) the distinction among the Jivas
(4) the distinction between the Jiva and the Jada
(5) the distinction among the Jadas i.e, distinction between one
inanimate object and another.

This fivefold difference is collectively spoken of by Madhva as "Prapanca". It is real and eternal.

"EPISTIMOLOGY (The Theory Of Pramana)

As the philosophical enquiry aims at acquiring information regarding Reality, of which definite and valid
knowledge is possible, all our experience of truth (reality) has to be ascertained on the basis of some
objective standards by which they are judged. Because human experience being at times vitiated by
illusions, it becomes necessary to define truth in experience so as to enable us to distinguish it from the
 3

false. Epistimology deals with an investigation into the means of such valid knowledge viz., the quest for
an ultimate basis of certainty of all experience and knowledge.

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

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

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

Flawless reasoning is defined as ANUMANA. Inference is based on the rememberance of Vyapti

(concomittance)between Hetu (probans) and Sadhya (probandum).

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

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

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

MEMORY is admitted as a pramana or souce of valid knowledge, by Madhva. He brings Memory

under Pratyaksa and considers it as a direct perception by the mind (`ManasaPrathyaksa'). Its validity
cannot, he says, be treated as merely inferential. Memory is defined as the direct apprehensions of mind
penetrating into past.

THE THEORY OF VALIDITY:

Pramanas give rise to valid knowledge of things "as they are in fact". Validity is genrally defined in
terms of corrspondence with objective reality. Thus `Pramana' means `Yathartham'; or what
comprehends a thing as
it is. Knowledge carries its own proof.
 4

"THE THEORY OF SAKSI:

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

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

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

Madhva thus postulates a new principle of truthdetermination in epistemology in the form Saksi, as the
the ultimate criterion of truth which is infalliable and intrinsically valid. Its reasons are:

(1) that it alone can be the ultimate guarantor of the validity

of all Pramanas,
(2) that is the logical fulfilment and culmination of any really
really selfcomplete theory of knowledge, and
(3) that it is the only means of intuitive perception of certain
supersensuous categories like Time, Space, the nature of self
and its attributes, the mind and its modes, all knowledge of
pleasures and pain, etc.
 5

THE CONCEPT OF VISESAS:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: The purpose `visesa' which is introduced in Madhva's system is to explain " the appearance
of `bheda' where there is none". This concept distinguishes a quality from a substance and a part from
the whole. Between a substance and its quality or between a wahole and its parts there is no difference.
The difference appears on account of `visesa'. For example, one cannot perceive any difference between
the cloth and its whitness, but he do percieve the `visesa' (particularity) of the cloth. If there where
difference between cloth and whiteness, then there would be difference between the difference and cloth,
 6

and between difference and whiteness, and so on "ad infinitum". Visesa of Madhava, characterises the
eternal as well as noneternal substance. In case of God, the principle of `visesa' is employed to reconcile
his unity with plurality of his qualities and powers(`saktis'), and the plurality of His Divine body, Divine
dress, Divine abode, and the like.

"THE ONTOLOGICAL SCHEME OF MADHVA'S PHILOSOPHY

REALITY

SVATANTRA PARATANTRA
(Independent) (Dependent)
NARAYANA

BHAVA ABHAVA
(Existent) (Nonexistent)

PRAGABHAVA PRADHVAMSABHAVA SADABHAVA

(Antecedent) (Subsequent) (Absolute)
(the absence of a thing (the absence of a thing (the absenceof
before its making) after it is destroyed) horse's horn etc.)

CETANA ACETANA
(Sentient) (nonsentient)

NITYA ANITYA NITYAANITYA

(eternal (destructible) (eternal in one aspect unchanging) and changing in another
 7

VEDAS aspect)

PURANAS KALA PRAKRTI

ASAMRITA SAMSRITA
(having minimum (throughly modified)
modification)

24 TATTVAS BRAHMANDA
(Universe of the worlds
[10 senses, and everything within it)
5 bhutas,
5 sense objects,
1 manas,
1 buddhi,
1 ahankara tattva,
1 mahat tattva,

TOUCHED BY MISERY UNTOUCHED BY MISERY

OR SAMSARA OR SAMSARA
(Jeevas) (Goddess Lakshmi)

MUKTA NOW IN MESERY

(liberated from misery
or samsara)

DEVAS RISHIS PITRUS PAS NARAS

 8

ELIGIBLE FOR MOKSA INELIGIBLE FOR MOKSA

(Sattvikas, five kinds as
muktas above)

ELIGIBLE FOR ETERNAL ETERNALLY IN SAMSARA

DAMNATION (Rajasas)
(Tamasas) (men neither good
or bad)

DAITYAS RAKSASAS PISACHAS WORST MEN

(Already damned) (Now in samsara)

"DEFINITIONS:

BRAHMAN:

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

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

(ii) Attributes of Brahman: Madhva's conception of God emphasises two aspect of Divinitythe
perfection of being (`sarvagunapurnatvam') and freedom from all limitations
(`sarvadosagandhavidhuratvam'). These two aspects cover and exhaust all that is great and good in the
idea of God. He is Infinite (`poorna'), of perfect bliss, the real of reals (`satyasya satyam'), eternal of
eternal (`nityo nityanam'), the Sentient of all sentients (`cetanascetananam'), the source of all reality,
consciousness and activity (`sattapratitipravrttinimittam') in the finite. The attributes and actions of
 9

Brahman are the same as itself. They are not different. There is no mutual difference, either, among
them. He is all pervasive and (atata) and all perceiving (matr). All the several attributes partake which
the nature of Brahman are inseperable from Him and from one another. (iii) Cosmic activities of
Brahman: The cosmic powers of the Supreme are eight in number: creation, preservation, dissolution,
control, enlightenment, obscuration, bondage and release. Madhva holds that the Supreme Being itself
(identified with Visnu) acts through the instrumentality of other Gods (of limited jurisdiction over
particular aspects of cosmic activities) to conduct the cosmic activities. It is Isvara Himself who directs
properly, the various potencies of Nature and of the souls for production, growth, development, etc.,
which are always dependent on Him. The Prakrti, Purusas and their respective capacities, their very
presence, cognizability and functioing, all these are controlled by Isvara, eternally, through His eternal
power. Just as noneternal things are ordained by the eternal will of Isvara to be noneternal, similarly,
eternal substances too are ordained by His will, be eternal. The jivas, their karma, categories, kala, sruti,
kriya etc., all these exist, function and are cognized only by His will and pleasure. They have existence in
His despite. Hence, the very reality, existence, etc., of Prakrti and other entities depend on His control.
He enters into Prakrti and energizes it to transform in vaous ways and assumes many forms to control
such modifications.

(iv) Manifestations of Brahaman: The Supreme Lord puts on a multiplicity of forms to evolve the
univere through different stages. These forms, though innumerable, are nevertheless idtical with one
anothe, save for their numerical distinction. The first in the order of Divine manifestations is the
quaternion of Vasudeva, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Sankarsana, popularly known as the (Catur) Vyuha,
credited with redmptive, creeative, sustaining and destructive functions. The Supreme further
differentiates itself inti ten (familiar Avatars) or twelve, hundred, thousand and so on. THese personal
manifestation of the Lord are spoken of as SuddhaSrsti, in `Pancaratra' terinology. They are also
designataed as Vyuhas in a general sense.

Madhva accepts four kinds of manifestaions of God (though he does not use this nomenclature):

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

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

JIVAS (ATMAN):

Souls are conceived in Madhva's system as finite centres of conscious experience, each with a unique
essence of its own. The essence of individuality is that one finite centre of experience cannot possess, "as
its own immediate" experience, the experience of another. It is this nontransferable immediacy of
experience that distinguishes one self from another, inspite of their possessing certain similar
 10

characteristics. Each has a specific content of consciousness, reality and bliss and constitutes a
focalization which is nowhere exactly repeated in nature. The nature of the souls is to be one of
unalloyed bliss and pure intelligence. It is essentially free from any kind of misery or pain; though
subjected to a natural gradation of intelligence and bliss in cosmic hierarchy of selves and subject always
to the Supreme, in bondage "and in release". The sense of misery, which is bondage, is external to their
essence and is brought about by a "real" though "misplaced sense of independence of initiative and
conduct"

The Jivas are reflected counterparts (`pratibimbamsa') of Brahman (Visnu). The bodies of the Jivas,
eternally present in Vaikuntha, the celestial abode of Visnu, are transcendental (`aprakrta'). Hence, they
are called unconditionedreflectedcounterparts (`nirupadhikapratibimbamsa') of Visnu. The bodies of the
Jivas of the material world are matierial; therefore, they are called conditionedreflectedcounterparts
(`sopadhikapratibimbamsa') of Visnu.

(i) Plurality of Selves: Madhva holds the doctrine of multiplicity of selves. The basis for this is the
intrinsic diversity of their essences, which he shows to be "inevitable presupposition of the theory of
Karma". It is accepted that the inequalities of individual equipment and endowment are regulated by
one's pastlife and its Karma. But, by its very nature, the Karma theory would be powerless to explain the
" why of such inequalities, in the remotest past, without recourse to the hypothesis of an intrinsic
peculiarity (`anadi visesa') that is uncaused. It is this `anadivisesa' or `Svabhavabheda'says Madhva, that
distinguishes one soul from another. This is the dcisive contribution which Madhva has made to the
interpretation of the problem of life and its diversitis. He has thus gone beyond the principle of Karma,
unerringly, to the " Svabhavabheda" ( intrinsic or essential differences in the nature of the beings).
Similarly, the uniqueness of each individual experience, which forms the content of personality, is
sufficient reason, according to Madhva, for the acceptanc of `Jivabahutvavada' (plurality of souls) and
the distinctiveness of each individual.

The theory of Svarupabheda of souls elaborated by Madhva is, thus, the only solution of the problem of
plurality of selves, their freedom and free will.

(ii) Tripartite classification of souls: Madhva's doctrine of the Soul insists not only upon the
distinctiveness of each soul but also upon an intrinsic gradation among them based on varying degrees of
knowledge, power, and bliss. This is known as `Taratamya' or `Svarupataratamya', which comes out all
the more clearly in the released state, where the souls realize their true status. `Jivatraividhya' or
tripartite classification of "Unreleased Souls" into (1) `Muktiyogya' (salvable), (2) Nityasamsarin
(evertransmigrating and (3) `Tamoyogya' (damnable) are the allied doctrines of `Svarupataratamya' of
souls. This theory of Madhva, is intended to justify and reconcile the presence of evil with divine
perfection.

Sri Madhva also speaks about the intrinsic differences existing among the "Released" souls.
Hiranyagarbha among the released (and in Samsara too) occupying a privileged position as Jivottama.
His accepts innate distinction among (released) souls into Deva, Rsi (Pitr, Pa) and Naras. The Devas are
`Sarvaprakasa'(fit to realize God as pervasive), the Sages are `Antahprakasa'and the rest `Bahihprakasa'.

The doctrine of intrinsic gradation among souls would follow as a matter of course, once the principle
of their plurality is admitted. Many philosophical topics related to the law of Karma, the problem of
good and evil, behaviour of freewill displayed in the case of individual jivas etc. can be solved only by
the acceptance of the above theories of Sri Madhva. The recognition of special class of souls called
`Nityasuris' (as in the system of Ramanuja) and the class called `Nityasamsarins' will be inexplicable
without the acceptance of an intrinsic gradation of souls into ordinary and "elect" and so on. The higher
 11

position of Sesitva assigned to "Sri" in respect of Nityasuris also points to a natural gradation among
souls. Similarly the existence of Nityamuktas like Visvaksena, Garuda, Ananta etc. who always remain
free from Samsara (accepted by the Visistadvatins) and the high place assigned to Brahma among the
gods (by Vedic and Puranic literature) are to be highlighted in this connection as their spititual excellence
and superiority over other souls. Gods and men are not equal in their basic nature and powers, or in the
innate tendencies for good or bad, which determine their future development. The doctrine of intrinsic
gradation of souls is thus a resoned and reasonable hypothesis of human nature and destiny, suggested
by the moral law and supported by reason, revelation and experience. Madhva holds that it can not be
satisfactorily accounted for the presence and continuation of evil in a world created and ruled by a most
perfect Being unless it is taken to be natural to some as goodness is to others. Without such a
fundamental division of human nature, the disparities of life reflected in the seemingly unfair distribution
of pleasure and pain and oppotunities for moral growth are not satisactorily explained. The law of
Karma cannot satisfy the quest for an ultimate explanation of such bewildering enexplicabilities. It
cannot explain why given two alternatives of good or evil, certain persons show a marked preference or
tendency towards the one and others to the opposite. Moral worth, knowledge, works, experience,
heredity, opportunities, culture none of these explanatons of diversity solves the riddle pushed to its
staring point; The final solution can only be found in the ingerent nature of beings.
Madhva and his commentators have cited many texts from the Vedic and postVedic literature ( from
Gita XVI 3, 5, 6, 18, 20; VIII. 2; Bhag. 6.14.5; Isa. Up 3 etc.), in support of the acceptance of the
Traividhya among Jivas who are entangled within the samsara. An intrinsic divergence of nature and
faith into `Sattvika', `Rajasa' and `Tamasa' which is rooted in the core of individual nature (`dehinam
svabhavaja) as stated in the Gita, is the ultimate basis of this theory according to Madhva. This theory is
developed from the doctrine of TrividhaSraddha in the Gita. The term Sattvika, Rajasa, and Tamasa are
applied to the Jivas in their tripartite classification, according to Madhava, ha reference to their basic
nature of Caitanya going beyond the play of Prakrti nad its gunas: "yo yac chraddhah sa eva sah" (Gita
XVII. 3). This is clear from Madhva's comment on the above verse, where he interprets the term
"sattvanurupa" as "cittanurupa".

(iii) Selfluminosity of souls: The individual soul, as a sentient being, is admitted by Madhva to be
selfluminious (`svaprakasa'). It is not merely of the form of knowledge (`jnanasvarupa') but is a knower
(`jnatr'). The conception of self as a conscious personality is the same as it is in respect of God, expect
for the fact that even the selfluminosity of the Jiva is dependent on the Supreme, which makes bondage
possible.

JAGAT:

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

Madhva's theory of the constitution of matter and the evolution of the world is based on the `Samkhya'
metaphysics of Upanisads, the Epics and Puranas. He quotes profusely from Mahabharata, the
Bhagavata and other Puranas and other Puranas and from the vast literature of the Pancaratras. He
accepts the doctrine of evolution of matter (Prakrti) as a follower of the Epic Samkhya. He accepts
Prakrti as eternal insentient primordial stuff dependent on Brahman on the authority of Upanisadic, Epic
and Puranic Samkhya cosmology. It is directly and indirectly the material cause (`upadhana karana') of
the world. It is the direct material cause of time and the three qualities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas and
 12

indirectly of Mahat, Ahamkara etc. It is both eternal and pervasive; but not unlimited. The three gunas
are supposed to be differentiated at the begining of creation, in the ratio of 4:1/22:1. The evolution of
other forms of matter takes place on account of the disturbance in their equipose which gives rise to the
24 principles commonly recognized, viz. Mahat, Ahamkara, Buddhi, Manas, ten sensory organs, five
senseobjects and five great elements. Mahat is the first and finest evolute of matter and energy. Ahankara
is the principle of individuation, Buddhi that of discrimination, and Manas of thought. The principle of
Ahamkara is divided into three classes of Vaikarika, Taihjasa, and Tamasa. From Taijasa the ten sense
organs are produced, and the five sense objects (`visayas') and the elements are the products of
TamasaAhamkara. The `tanmatras' stand for qualitatively distinct and irreducible sensequalities with a
definite leaning towards their appropriate objects. These 24 evlutions of Prakrti are the constituents of
the microcosm and the macrocosm of the entire Brahmanda. Madhva gives a proper reorientation to this
theory of material evolution by linking it up with a systematic hierarchy of presiding deities from top to
bottom. It is under the constant supervision and guidance of these ""Abhimanidevatas" (or
"Tattvabhimanins") that all material transformations and psychophysical functions are carried on. The
Supreme Brahman itself ultimately behing all these activities and of each and every one of them.

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

BONDAGE ( of Jivas in Samsara ):

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

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

Thus, according to Madhva, the obscuration of the soul leading to bondage is, in the last analysis, to
referred to the inscrutable power of God, who actuates the latent power of Prakrti known by various
names such as Maya and Avidya in the Sastras. Though it is in the nature of Maya to obscure, yetthe
intervention of the Lord is "necessary" for its functioning as a principle of obscuration, in so far as
Prakrti and its powers are insentient (jada) and therefore "asvatantra" (incapable of independent
initiative). This obscuration of the essential nature of Jivas cannot be ascribed due to the influence of
Kama, Karma, etc. alone; for these are themselves the effects of earlier causes and thus are "dependent
 13

principles" and there is no reason why the soul should have succumbed to their attraction, surrendering
his selfluminosity. In any case, they would not be an adequate explanation of the obscuration of the self,
felt even in Susupti and Pralaya, when there is no operation of Kama or Karma, Vasanas, etc. Hence, it
is obivious that there is some other principle (over and above all these) that is preventing the self from
realizing its true nature, in full, here and now. This is the principle of Prakrti (Jada) which presses down
Jivas from beginningless eternity and obscures their natures at the will of the Lord and not by its own
power, as already explained. Thus, Madhva finds the ultimate explanation of the bondage of souls in the
power of Prakrti controlled by the inscrutable and mysterious Will of God. This is in complete accord
with the views of great theistic scriptures like the Gita (VII. 14), about origin of bondage.

SADHANA:

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

[But, Madhva on the basis of scritures (Brahmasutra II.3.33) ascribes jiva the title of "doer" or `Karta'.
He maintains that the human soul is the real agent in all its actions eventhogh he is not an absolutely
independent agent. The Jiva derives his ability to do things, metaphysically, from the creator. For, God
merely "enables" the Jiva to pursue a couse of action, not arbitrarily, but in relation to his former life and
disires. He does not "interfere" with the Jiva's decision in any way. He sustains but never constrains
(Gita 18. 63). The Jiva chooses out of his free will a particular line of action for good or for bad with
sufficient foreknowledge of its moral worth and has himself to thank for the consequences. He cannot,
therefore, blame anyone, least of all God, for the unpleasant consequences of his acts, should he have
chosen wrongly]

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

Vairagya is defined as the nonattachment to the body and bodily

pleasures and cravings. This is the first step and primary requisite of a true aspirant. It constitutes the
essence of spiritual life.

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

Manana is the systematic employment of the canons of textual interpretation and logical examination
with a view to arriving at a firm conviction that the final interpratation of the Sastras thus arrived at is
alone the correct and unimpeachable one. Manana removes doubts (`samsaya') and misapprehension
(`viparyaya') and confirms the true import of the Sastras (`paroksatattvaniscaya'). Nididhyasana or
Dhyana (continious meditation) leads to direct realization (`darsana'). Sravana and Manana are thus
subsidiary (`angabhuta') Nididhyasana which is the chief means (`angi') if Saksatkara.
 14

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

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

Different Spiritual Disciplines:

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

Karma Yoga, according to Madhva is the enlightened spiritual activity (`niskamam jnanapurvam karma')
by all, which cannot be binding in its consequences. On the basis of Gita he establishes that it is neither
`pravrtti marga' ( faithful performance of the round of Vedic sacrifices and ritualistic rites prescribed by
the Srutis and Smrtis with the expectation of their rewards in this or in the next world and the adherence
to the duties of varna and asrama) nor `nivrtti marga' (abandonment of all Karma) but performance of
Karma in a spirit of devotion and vairagya is more important. Even this type of performing
`niskamakarma' is not to be admitted as anything more than an accessory to spiritual realization. It is to
be pursued for the purpose of acquiring mental purufication. The reason why Karma cannot be treated
as an independent means of release is that it is by nature, irrepressibly found to be enexhaustible by the
enjoyment of fruits. The help of Jnana is, therefore, indispensable to destroy or neutralize the latent
effects of past Karma (Gita IV.37). Suchb a power of destroying the accumulated load of past Karma, or
rendering it nugatory is ascribed to the actual vision (`aparoksajnana') of God, through `dhyana'
(meditation). Madhva, therefore, regards enlightened activity (`Niskamakarma') merely as contributing
to such knowledge through Vairagya. Madhva is, thus, clear that disinterested activity carried on in a
spirit of devotion t God is a powerful incentive to the acquisition of knowledge which alone is trhe
highest means of realease. Karma and Dhyana and others are just accessories to it.

Conception of Bhakti: Madhva has given a unique place to Divine grace in his system, in making it the
ultimate cause of selfrealization. To attain the grace of the Divine the sadhaka has to appease the Lord.
This can only be done by Bhakti as the deepest attachment to the Lord, deeprooted and based on a clear
understanding of His greatness and majesty. Bhakti is, thus, the steady flow of deep attachment to God,
impregnable by any amount of impediments and transcending the love of our own selves, our kith and
kin, cherished belongings, etc. and fortified by a firm conviction of the transcendent majesty and
greatness of God as the abde of all perfections and free from all blemish and by an unshakable conviction
of the complete metaphysical dependence of everything else upon Him. When one is flooded by such an
intensive and allabsorbing love he gets completely immersed in blissful contemplation of Him and is lost
to all his surroundings. Such Bhakti is necessary to manifest the natural and intrinsic relationship of
Pratibimbatva of the souls to God, which lies dormant in the state of bondage.
 15

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

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

`Taratamya' in Bhakti: Taratamya or gradational approcach in the practice of Bhakti is a necessary

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

Stages of Bhakti: Madhva distinguishes 3 stages of Bhakti: (1) that a which "precedes" Paroksajnana
(meditate knowledge of the Deity), (2) one that "follows" it, and (3) a third that comes "after direct
realization" (`Aparoksajnana') and wins the absolute grace (`atyarthaprasada') of the Lord. It this final
stage of Bhakti that fully manifests, by the grace of God, the true relationshi that exists between the Jiva
and Brahman and completes the fulfilment of realization viz. the full manifestation and enjoyment of the
intrinsic bliss of one's own self and the Majesty of the Lord. The last one is an end in itself, this is the
sublime nature of Bhakti. Thus in Madhva's system there are two distinct phases of Bhakti, one
operating at the Sadhana or "preparatory level" and the other Sadhya or the fundamental level of Moksa
itself. Pleased with the initial Bhakti of the Jivas, the Lord bestows on them firm knowledge of His
nature and attributes. He then reveals Himself. Thereafter He inspires them with still more intensive
 16

devotion and after showing Himself to the Bhaktas He cuts the knot of their Prakrtic bondage. In the
released state also, the Jivas remain under the Lord's control imbued with unalloyed devotion to Him.

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

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

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

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

Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that final release should take place at the destruction (by death) of
that particular body in and through which Aparoksajnana was attained. It depends on Prarabdhakarma. If
its effects have been workd out (in that body) there is no more delay; but if they have not been, then he
must pass through some more `lives' to work them out. This is the position of Sastras on the point. But
since law of Karma is not independent of the Lord's will, Madhva interposes a saving clause in respect of
God's will, which nothing can limit. This may be called the "Vetoing power" (`Upamarda') of the Lord
excercised in His own grace.
 17

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

MUKTI:

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

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

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

The supreme bliss in Moksa is not a stagnant state. Madhva, says that there is scope for activity and full
play of capabilities for everyone according to one's ablities. Some of the released may rest in the
contemplation of their own blessedness, like Advaitic brahman. Some may contrast their present with
their past and feel thankful for their deleverance. They may adore the majesty of God and sing His
Praises or worship Him in a thousand ways. Some may offer sacrifices, if they wish to the only
difference being that "nothing is obligatory there". There is no "prescribed round of activites" or code of
conduct in Moksa, which means there is unlimited scope for spontaneous, creative work of every kind.
 18

Ananda Taratamya in Moksa: or a hierarchic gradation in the nature , range, quality, intensity etc., of
`svarupa ananda' or innate bliss enjoyed by the released souls, is a logical deduction from the theory of
Svarupabheda of souls accepted by Madhva. Since Moksa is only the discovery of one's selfhood and
experiencing what is there in it (`muktirhitva.......), there is no possibility of exchanging one's experience
with another's or its transference to another, whether wholly or in part. Each released soul rests fully
satisfied (`purnatrpta') in the enjoyment of "his own Svarupaananda" Madhva uses the argument based
on the obvious disparity in the Sadhanas of different orders of beings to reinforce the docrine of
Anandataratamya in Moksa. There is natural gradation among the released souls as also disparity in their
Sadhanas. The difference in the nature and quality of Sadhanas must necessarily have a relationto the
result. The existence of such a gradation in Moksa is established by reaosn and revelation. Just as vessels
of different sizes, the rivers and the Ocean are "full" of water according to their respective capacities,
even so, in respect of the Jivas, from ordinary human beings to Brahmadeva, their fulness of bliss
attained through Sadhanas is to be understood with reference to their varying (intrinsic) capacities The
sadhanas practiced by them such as Bhakti, Jnana etc., are nothing more than an expression of their
intrinsic potentialities, which are the core of their being going back to their beginningless eternity. Those
with limited capacities are satisfied with limited bliss and those with comparatively greater capacities
reach fulfilment with still more. But each one's satisfaction would be "full" and "complete" in itself
having reached its `saturation point'.