râjâsya sphuñam upalabhya vismito ‘smai râjyârdhaü sapadi samarpayâm babhûva |
MV 10.18.
23 See Bhatt, Studies in Tuëuva History and Culture, Chopra, History of South India, Diwakar, Karnataka Through the Ages, and Sastri, A History of South India.
21
8
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
in the MV involving Jayasiüha describes the loss of Madhvâcârya’s
extensive library to the thievery of a local philosopher who was, not
surprisingly, a follower of the Advaita School. Without his library,
Madhvâcârya was unable to teach his students how to refute the
positions of his Advaita contemporaries. Fortunately, he was reported
to have recovered the library with the help of the local king,
Jayasiüha, who may have also supported him during his stay in the
village of Pâóikuóel.24 There is no clear indication that local kings and rulers funded Madhvâcârya. Nevertheless one may surmise that
he received some assistance, financial and otherwise. What other
concerns, besides monetary needs and political endorsements, may have
affected Madhvâcârya? Were there many other religions with which he
interacted?
Religious context
The 13th and early 14th centuries ce were periods of religious excite-
ment in southern Karõâñaka, given the presence of âstika, philosophical
traditions based on the Vedas, nâstika, philosophical traditions not based on the Vedas, and tribal and indigenous traditions.25 Adherents to Vedânta, both Advaita and Viúiùñâdvaita, along with Jains and
Vîraúaivites, populated Tuëunâóu and propagated vastly differing
solutions to end the cycle of birth and rebirth.26 These literati traditions were juxtaposed with tribal and other indigenously based traditions,
including Úaivism, bhûtârâdhana, worship of apparitions, worship of
úakti, female power and worship of nâgas, snakes, among others, each with less systematized solutions to the problem of birth and rebirth. With
so many different beliefs and practices in such a small area, it would be
impossible for Madhvâcârya not to have encountered their doctrines and
adherents.
The Hoysala kings, who considered themselves supporters and
protectors of the various traditions that existed in Tuëunâóu, permitted
this religious pluralism.27 The rulers may not have had much of a choice but to allow pluralism, given that coastal Karõâñaka was a center for
24 See MV 15.1–141.
25 I am reliant upon Bhatt, Studies in Tuëuva History and Culture for many of the details with regard to Tuëuva religion, culture, etc.
26 For a brief overview see Hanumantha Rao, ‘Religious Toleration in Karnatak,’
312–319. See Dasgupta’s History for introductions to each of these traditions.
27 Diwakar, 443. Jain rulers, for example, funded non-Jain institutions. Bhatt, 441.
22
Madhvâcârya and the Mâdhva Tradition
9
trade with both South Asian and non-South Asian communities.28 It may be that the diversity encouraged the rise of a cosmopolitan society
wherein religious heterogeneity prevailed. Economic conditions may
have also indirectly affected prevailing religious attitudes. It is thus
likely that this variegated setting had a dramatic effect upon the
development of Madhvâcârya’s school of Vedânta.29
stika traditions: Vedânta
In the philosophical and religious realm, Mâdhva Vedânta competed
with Advaita and Viúiùñâdvaita, among other schools. As already
mentioned, the schools of Vedânta are commentarial traditions. Each
school makes differing claims about the meaning of canonical texts and,
therefore, the method by which one can obtain mokùa. Each links the
entirety of its doctrinal system to these interpretations. Each claims to
have the polemical and apologetic capacity to ward off and defeat deftly
the other two schools.
Both the Advaita and Viúiùñâdvaita Schools of Vedânta had many
followers in the area, making medieval southern Karõâñaka a ferment
of philosophical dispute. In fact, Râmânujâcârya, founder of the
Viúiùñâdvaita School of Vedânta who lived in the 12th century ce, is
known for converting Viùõuvardhana (1110–52 ce), a Hoysala king,
traditions. The heart of Viúiùñâdvaita activity, moreover, lay in nearby
Melkôñe. Temples, which were officiated by priests who followed ritual
and other worship texts found in the Advaita and Viúiùñâdvaita canons,
were built in the area, as were affiliated mañhas, monasteries. According
to the Úaükaradigvijaya, a hagiography of the founder of Advaita
Vedânta, Úaükarâcârya visited southern Karõâñaka in the 9th century
and disputed with scholars of local traditions.31 One of the four mañhas established by Úaükarâcârya himself was located in Sçïgeri, only about
28 See Bhatt, 220–225 for further details regarding overseas trade.
29 Govindâcârya, Madhvâcârya, 10. For example, Zydenbos has argued that Madhvâcârya’s epistemology draws from Jain epistemology. See his ‘On the Jaina
Background of Dvaitavedânta’ and Sharma’s ‘Jaina Background of Dvaita Vedânta – A
Farfetched Theory.’
30 Diwakar, 420.
31 See the Padmapâdatîrthayatrâvarõam and related chapters of Mâdhava’s Úaükaradigvijaya. These chapters are descriptions of religious pilgrimages and travels undertaken by Úaükarâcârya.
23
10
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
50 km, from Uóupi. 32 These two cities, Melkôte and Sçïgeri, were (and continue to be) centers for Vedânta studies in Karõâñaka.
The âstika Vedânta traditions were well established in southern
Karõâñaka and may have competed with one another for political
support and for adherents. Aside from disputes about philosophical
themes, there are no accounts of disagreements about land, patronage, or
other political issues between the Mâdhva School and these two Vedânta
traditions.
Two non-Vedânta traditions: Vîraúaivism and Jainism
Vîraúaivism and Jainism, two non-Vedic, non-Brahmanical traditions,
were prevalent in the Tuëunâóu. 33 Buddhism also had some historical significance in Tuëunâóu. But by medieval times Jainism and the
Advaita and Viúiùñâdvaita Schools displaced it. There were still vestiges
of Buddhism in medieval Tuëunâóu in the form of images and
monuments even though there was no longer a community of adherents.
Buddhism, Jainism and Vîraúaivism conflicted with the orthodox
Vedânta traditions and were oriented toward making their doctrines
accessible to the masses. In contrast, maintaining the integrity of varõa,
class, and jâti, caste, was and is essential to Mâdhva Vedânta. Use of the
vernacular, Kannaóa, for example, instead of Sanskrit, in conjunction
with appeals to the teachings of contemporary mystic saints, helped
to spread interest in Vîraúaivism among non-Brahmins. Vîraúaivas, in
fact, not only granted equal status to women but loosened the rigidity of
the varõa system in their tradition.34 Úûdras, who occupied the lowest position in the class system, for example, were given status
in worship
and other religious practices.35 The methods for obtaining mokùa were not restricted according to class as they were in the schools of Vedânta.
None of these non-Vedânta traditions, moreover, were interested in
the kinds of debates about texts that concerned Vedânta. Although
Vîraúaivism and Jainism were commentarial traditions, their canon was
completely different from those of the schools of Vedânta. Their social
program, as well as their interest in philosophical speculation outside of
the Vedânta canon, made them considerable adversaries to the âstika
traditions and social system.
32 Siauve, La Doctrine, 10.
33 Bhatt, 370–373. Vîraúaivism is also known as Liõgâyat. For more on these traditions see Chekki, Religion and Social System of the Virasaiva Community and Jaini, The Jaina Path of Purification.
34 Bhatt, 444–448. Ishwaran, 43, 115–121.
35 Bhatt, 448.
24
Madhvâcârya and the Mâdhva Tradition
11
Some of these non-orthodox traditions even enjoyed the patronage
of local rulers. Local rulers such as Narasiüha III supported the Jain
institutions as is evidenced by the large numbers of inscriptions and
documents that pertain to the funding of Jain institutions.36 The most important Jain mañha in South India was also located in southern
Karõâñaka at Úrâvaõa Belgoëa. In fact, the majority of feudal states in
Tuëunâóu were Jain.37 For these reasons, Jain activities in Tuëunâóu far outweighed those of the Vedânta traditions.
Non-Vedic nâstika traditions, which were opposed to Vedânta, were
prevalent in Tuëunâóu in the 13th and 14th centuries ce and competed
with one another, and especially with Vedânta. Their rejection of varõa
and jâti opposes the social systems expounded by the Vedânta traditions.
Such egalitarian tenets undoubtedly helped to foster religious and
theological excitement at the time. The cosmopolitan nature of the area
surrounding medieval Uóupi sparked interest among both literati and
lay people in these egalitarian traditions, in addition to inciting interest
in the schools of Vedânta and propelling their scholars into action.
Tribal and other indigenous traditions
These exegetical traditions, Vedânta, Vîraúaivism and Jainism, were
juxtaposed with tribal and other indigenous traditions, which did not
place any value on commentarial activity and did not systematize
their theological positions. These traditions were often localized and
more popular among the lower two varõas such as the vaiùyas and
úûdras. Many fostered methods to mokùa via bhakti, devotion, and did not encourage the study of esoteric texts or rituals. Though they
were insignificant in the development of Mâdhva doctrines, Mâdhvas
incorporated some of their practices and rituals.
Worship of Úiva stands foremost among these traditions and was
the prevalent religion in Tuëunâóu. Most temples in pre-Mâdhva
Tuëunâóu are Úaiva. Interestingly, the Uóupi Úrî Kçùõa temple founded
by Madhvâcârya in the 13th century ce and the aùñamañhas form a
circle, within which is enclosed the Úrî Ananteúvara temple. The Úrî
Ananteúvara temple, built in the 8th or 9th century ce, has a liïga, an
aniconic form of Úiva, as its centerpiece.38 Although the Úaiva tradition
36 Bhatt, 453. For further reading, see Bhatt, 426–451.
37 Bhatt, 441.
38 Bhatt, 282. According to Professor Varakhedi, Mâdhvas believe that this liïga actually represents Viùõu thereby making the Úrî Ananteúvara a Vaiùõava and not a
Úaiva temple.
25
12
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
was extant in Tuëunâóu prior to the influence of Úaükarâcârya, it
may be that the Advaita School played a role in popularizing Úiva.
According to Advaita cosmology, Úiva is held to be the highest among
the gods. It is likely that the Vîraúaiva communities also helped to
increase the importance of the Úiva temples, given the centrality of Úiva
to their religious practices. Madhvâcârya’s Vaiùõava tradition was thus
developed in a Úaiva-dominated context.
Úiva temples were often found in the vicinity of those devoted to
Úakti, female power.39 The Úakti traditions were also dominant in Tuëunâóu. Worshipped as Devî, Durgâ and, more often, as a local
female deity, they were sometimes linked to male counterparts who
were worshipped by the âstika traditions.40 For example, Mûkâmbikâ, a 15th-century ce form of the Goddess, was absorbed into the Mâdhva
tradition. Vâdirâja, the 15th-century ce svâmi of the Sôde mañha in Uóupi, invoked Mûkâmbikâ in his Tîrthaprabhanda.41 More recently, the Mahâkâlî temple in Ambalpadi Uóupi, a temple devoted to the
worship of the goddess Kâlî, was made a part of the Janârdana temple, a
Mâdhva temple devoted to an avatâra of Viùõu. These local and
indigenous traditions cannot be discounted. The Úaiva and Úakti
traditions may have been the most dominant traditions in Tuëunâóu.
Madhvâcârya’s Viùõu-based theology was in stark contrast to the
prevailing and principal traditions.
The Úakti traditions were also affiliated with tantric rituals and
worship regimens. These tantric texts and practices were very different
from those of the prevailing Vedic tradition. Further, though tantric
worship often entailed initiation rites, these rites were not restricted to
literati or other elite groups. They thus allowed all devotees to engage in
and lead worship practices. Such traditions were widespread among
the lower social classes. It is likely that such tantric traditions were
intellectual and social challenges for the âstika literati, who attempted to defend and uphold Vedic orthodoxy and class restrictions. Some tantric
rituals were even included in Mâdhva practices.
Perhaps the most well-known indigenous religious tradition of
Tuëunâóu is the bhûtârâdhana, apparition worship, also known as
dayivagaëu in Tuëu.42 Considered to be an indigenous Dravidian form, it
39 Bhatt, 283.
40 Bhatt, 302.
41 Vâdirâja, Tîrthaprabandha, 56–58. Bhatt, 301–302.
42 For further reading on bhûtârâdhana see Nambiar, The Ritual Art of Teyyam and Bhûtârâdhane: Theatrical Performance with Spirit Mediumship.
26
Madhvâcârya and the Mâdhva Tradition
13
is directly opposed to the âstika and nâstika traditions. 43 The practice of bhûta, apparition, worship was fully accepted by the majority of the
population and outweighed the importance of Úiva and Viùõu for most.44
The worship of apparitions often centered on Úakti and was integrated
into both later Vaiùõavism and Úaivism.45 Bhûtârâdhana, for example, is central to the worship at the Mahâkâlî temple, which, as mentioned
above, is part of the Janârdhana temple. The tradition may not have had
a noticeable effect on the doctrines of the Mâdhva school of Vedânta or
the other schools. Nevertheless, it indicates the presence of traditions
that predated many of the âstika, nâstika and related traditions and were in total variance with them.
The religious world at the time when Madhvâcârya first developed
his sch
ool of Vedânta was challenging, given the diverse and disparate
traditions that existed. There were many competing theologies and
methods for obtaining mokùa. These traditions were not isolated but
were part of a dynamic world of conversion and conversation, of
dialogue and debate. It is likely that the cosmopolitan atmosphere
allowed more interaction between adherents and more appropriation
of philosophical doctrines and religious practices. It is likely that this
atmosphere of plurality also affected Madhvâcârya and made him
aware of the boundaries between religious worlds and the ways to
maintain those boundaries. It may also have helped him to recognize
the centrality of the social system and one’s place in it, which, as will
become clear, is an integral component of his system.
Madhvâcârya’s theology is thus founded on the importance of
târatamya, hierarchy, as evidenced in the prevailing systems of varõa
and jâti. The centrality of social structure for Madhvâcârya and
maintenance of the status quo may be a reaction to the diversity
and menace of rival nâstika traditions in medieval Karõâñaka. This
târatamya structure prevails in Madhvâcârya’s epistemology, ontology
and soteriology and, aside from the centrality of Viùõu, may be the key
that holds together the entire Mâdhva philosophy of religion.
The Mâdhva saüpradâya, community and institutions
In addition to composing treatises on Vedânta matters, Madhvâcârya
founded the Mâdhva saüpradâya in Uóupi. According to traditional
43 Bhatt, 360.
44 Bhatt, 359.
45 Nambiar, 19.
27
14
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
accounts, Madhvâcârya discovered an idol of the god Kçùõa, an avatâra
of Viùõu, encased in mud in the ocean and installed it at a temple in
Uóupi. The idol is still worshipped in Uóupi today.
After ordaining eight monks, Hçùikeúa, Narasiüha, Janârdana,
Upendra, Vâmana, Viùõu and Adhokùaja, Madhvâcârya established
each of them as svâmi of a mañha thereby establishing the aùñamañhas, eight monasteries, as an institutional tradition.46 These are the Palimâr, Adamâr, Kçùõâpûr, Putige, Sirûr, Sôde, Kâõûr and Pejâvar mañhas.
Viùõutîrtha, Madhvâcârya’s younger brother, who is included among the