according to the Mâdhva position, then one evokes the fallacy of
anavasthâ, infinite regress, mentioned earlier in the characterization of
the sâkùî and doùas, fallacies, in anumâna: the first authority, A1, itself requires an authority, namely, A2, which requires A3 ... ad infinitum. To
escape this conundrum, the Vedas must be regarded as self-validating.66
61 As already mentioned in Chapter 1, for Hindus time is cyclical. The universe perpetually is born, develops, and is destroyed. More on the divisions of time below in Chapter 4.
62 nityâ vedâþ samastâú ca úâúvatâ viùõubudhigâþ | sarge sarge ‘munaivaita udgîryante tathaiva ca | tatkrameõaiva tair varõaiataiþ svarair eva nânyathâ | ataþ úrutitvam etâsâü úrutâ eva yato ‘khilaiþ | janmânatare úrutâstâstu vâsudevaprasâdataþ
| munînâü patibhâsyanti bhâgenaiva na sarvaúaþ | yatastâ hariõâ dçùñâþ úrutâ evâparair janaiþ | úrutayo dçùñayaú ceti tenocyante purâtanaiþ | VTV.
63 vijñeyaü paraü brahma jñâpikâ paramâ úrutiþ | anâdianityâ sâ tac ca vinâ tâü sa gamyate iti kâtyâyanaúruti | VTV.
64 na coccâraõakâla eva varõânâm utpattir iti vâcyam | VTV. The term varõa has a broad semantic range that includes both ‘class’ and ‘phoneme.’
65 tadutpattivacaú caiva bhved yuktim apekùya tu | cetanasya janair yadvaducyate sarvalaukikaiþ | VTV.
66 prâmâõyaü ca svata eva | anyathânavasthânât | VTV. tatprâmâõyaü ca svata eva siddham | VTV. See this and subsequent passages for more arguments. Also çgâdyaú ca catvâraþ pañcarâtraüica bhâratam | mûlarâmâyaõaü brahmasûtraü mânaü svataþ ...
| MBhTN 1.30–31.
49
36
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
The status they have as a pramâõa, means of valid knowledge, cannot be
questioned.
These úruti texts, which are accepted to be indisputably true, are the
foundations of âgama-pramâõa. As already mentioned, the meaning
and interpretation of these texts are the root of heated debates between
the traditions of Vedânta. They are pivotal for these commentarial
traditions. It should come as no surprise that the validity of the
commentaries and other secondary literature, which have their inspiration
in the úruti, needs to be established. These texts are known as smçti, traditional human-authored texts. What characterizes them? How do
they gain epistemic authority? Who can produce them?
Pauruùeya-âgama , sentences and texts having human authorship
Smçti, tradition, refers to a wide variety of humanly composed sentences
and texts. These range from bhâùyas, commentarial works, to dharma-
úâstras, treatises on law, from the utterances of âpta, authoritative, people to Purâõic parables. In contrast to úruti, the pauruùeya-âgama
are believed by Madhvâcârya to be anitya, not eternal.67 They are reconstituted each time the universe is destroyed and recreated. When
they are reconstituted, their word order may change even though their
meaning remains the same and so they are deemed to be anitya.68 On the other hand, since smçti must agree with úruti and the meaning of úruti is eternal, it follows that the meaning of smçti also is eternal. Given that
their meaning is dependent on úruti, authentic smçti are texts that do not conflict with úruti.69 In this sense, smçti can be understood to be nityânitya, both eternal and non-eternal.
Smçti are not taken to be unquestionably true as are their úruti
counterparts. They are humanly made and can suffer human errors.
They have a lower degree of epistemic authority in comparison to úruti.
In fact, the primary point of dispute between schools of Vedânta
regarding the epistemic authority of the âgamas does not concern
the validity and epistemic authority of the Vedas. Instead, the point
of contention concerns the inclusion and, therefore, reliability, of
controversial smçti. There is a need to argue for the âptatva, reliability, of pauruùeya smçti, traditional texts having a human origin, and,
67 purâõânâm apy anythâ úabdaracanam evânityatvam | VTV.
68 purâõâni tadarthâni sarge sarge ‘anyathaiva tu | kriyante ‘tastvanityâni tadarthâþ pûrvasargavat | VTV.
69 ... smçtam | aviruddhaü tu yat tv asya pramâõam tac ca nânyathâ | etad viruddhaü yat tu syânna tanmânaü kathañcana | MBhTN 1.30–31.
50
Mâdhva Epistemology
37
indirectly, for the reliability of the statements of teachers such as
Madhvâcârya. The delineation of the boundaries of the canon are an
integral part of the debate between the schools of Vedânta.
Madhvâcârya proposes that a number of texts, including the Tantras,
the Mahâbhârata, the Râmâyaõa, Purâõas and Mânava-dharma-úâstra, Manu’s Treatise on Law, are smçti (see Fig. 2.8).70
pauruùeya-âgama
nitya/nityânitya
Tantras Mahâbhârata Râmâyaõa Purâõas Mânava-dharma-úâstra Brahma Sûtras
2.8 Some of the pauruùeya-âgamas
Madhvâcârya does not discuss the character of the Tantras. In his
Tattvaprakâúika, The Elucidation of the True Nature [of Viùõu], a
commentary on Madhvâcârya’s BSB, however, Jayatîrtha glosses tantra
as pañcarâtra. 71 Madhvâcârya includes the Pañcarâtrâgamas as smçti and thus expands the class of texts held to be smçti by rival schools
of Vedânta, most notably, Advaita. The Pañcarâtrâgamas are theistic
and sectarian texts that contain prescriptions for ritual behavior,
construction of temples and the like, with an underlying philosophical
foundation. They were affiliated with the god Nârâyaõa and pietistic
devotion towards him. Nârâyaõa is identified with Viùõu by Vaiùõavas.
The reliance upon the Pañcarâtrâgamas is found only among the
Vaiùõava schools of Vedânta, namely Viúiùñâdvaita and Mâdhva
Vedânta. In defense of his inclusion of the sectarian text as smçti,
Madhvâcârya states:
Nârâyaõa himself is the speaker of the entire Pañcarâtrâgama. Oh
Râjendra, [the knowledge of the Pañcarâtrâgama] is superior to
the knowledge [located] in all of these [texts and schools, namely],
the Sâükhya, Pâúupata and the like.72
70 vaiùõavâni purâõâni pañcarâtrâtmakatvataþ | pramâõâny eva manvâóyâþ smçtayopy anukûlataþ | MBhTN 1.32.
71 tantraü pañcarâtrâdi | Tattvaprakâúika 1.1.1.
72 pañcarâtrasya kçtsnasya vaktâ nârâyaõaþ svayam | sarveùv eteùu râjendra jñâneùv etad viúiùyate | jñâneùv eteùu râjendra sâmkhyapâúupatâdiùu | MBhTN 2.107–108.
51
38
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
Although the authorship of the Pañcarâtrâgama is ascribed to Nârâyaõa
and Nârâyaõa is further equated with Viùõu, the text is nonetheless
classified as pauruùeya. Despite its equivalence with the Vedas, it
nonetheless remains smçti. In another passage, Madhvâcârya again
repeats that the Vedas and the Pañcarâtrâgamas are identical:
In the passage [found in] the Mokùadharma [section of the
Mahâbhârata] beginning with ‘Sâükhya, Yoga, Paúupata, the
Vedâraõyakas ... ,’ the authority of the Pañcarâtra is declared
because of the similarity of the intended meaning of both the Vedas
and the Pañcarâtra.73
By including these texts and expanding the boundaries of the canon,
Madhvâcârya incorporates data that can be used to buttress his own
position and, of course, to attack those of his interlocutors. The
Pañcarâtras are unusual, though, because, despite being smçti, their author is the infallible Viùõu. This makes them identical in epistemic
authority to the Vedas while remaining anitya, non-eternal. The bivalent nature of these texts justifies their unusual status among the texts held to
be âgama.
The Mahâbhârata and the Râmâyaõa are Hindu epics. They are held
to be narrative histories and are called itihâsas. They include stories
about the avatâras, incarnations, of Viùõu as Kçùõa in the former
and Râma in the latter texts. These two epics are accepted by all of the
schools of Vedânta and Mâdhva Vedânta is no exception.
At the beginning of his BSB, Madhvâcârya maintains that, in the
form of the sage Vyâsa, Viùõu composed the Brahma Sûtras. The
Brahma Sûtras are a smçti which provides the most comprehensive
commentary on and analysis of the Vedas by the schools of Vedânta.
Madhvâcârya states: ‘He [Vyâsa] composed the Brahma Sûtras for the
sake of the ascertainment of the purport [of the Vedas].’74 This text originates from Viùõu himself. Despite having divine origins, the
Brahma Sûtras are not úruti. They are still composed by a human author, even though the author is an avatâra, incarnation, of Viùõu.
The list of texts included as smçti by Madhvâcârya is a matter of
great debate. Aside from the debates concerning the inclusion of some
texts and the exclusion of others, other debates about the authenticity
of a number of the texts referred to by Madhvâcârya have arisen. For
73 sâmkhyâü yogaþ pâúupataü vedâraõyakam eva ca | ity ârabhya vedapañcarâtryor aikyâbhiprâyeõa pañcarâtrasyaiva prâmâõyam uktam itareùâm bhinnam atattvaü
pradarúya mokùadharmeùv api | BSB 1.1.3.
74 tadarthanirõayâya brahmasûtrâõi cakâra | BSB 1.1.1.
52
Mâdhva Epistemology
39
example, Madhvâcârya often cites passages from the Brahma Tarka,
which has yet to be recovered and is not mentioned by name by any other
Vedânta philosopher.75 The putative existence of these texts became a matter of some debate between Mâdhva and other Vedânta schools.
Nârâyâõâcârya, a 17th-century Mâdhva, for example, attempted to
defend Madhvâcârya’s use of untraceable texts in his Advaitakâlânala
against the Advaita scholar Appayya Dikùita (16th century ce).76
Madhvâcârya’s commentaries and writings are, naturally, considered
to be smçti by the Mâdhva community. He is considered to be âpta,
an authority. What kinds of people and what kinds of statements are
supposed to be reliable and âpta? Is âptatva, reliability, a goal that anyone could achieve?77
Madhvâcârya’s definition of âptavâkya, authoritative statement, is
found in his Anuvyâkhyâna: ‘[There is reliability in statements where]
there is suitability of the context, of the teacher and of the pupil.’78An âptavâkya is generated in a pedagogical setting by sincerely committed
students and teachers. These criteria need to be fulfilled for a statement
to be regarded as reliable. First, the statement must have the Vedas as its source. Second, if the source of the statement is smçti, then the speaker
must be reliable. Reliability of the speaker is indexed to pedagogical
environments and to physical characteristics. If an assertion meets these
requirements, then it can be regarded as reliable and, more importantly,
it may be located in Madhvâcârya’s canon.
Recall that âgama, verbal testimony, is knowledge from defectless
words.79 gama that is smçti must be produced by âpta speakers. pta speakers must have defectless anu-pramâõas. That is, their pratyakùa, perception, and, therefore, their indriyas, senses, must be without flaws.
ptatva, reliability, is thus indexed to physical parameters. In his
commentary on the Mahâbhârata, the Mahâbhâratatâtparyanirõaya,
75 See Sharma, History, 88 and Siauve, La Doctrine, 26–32 for brief discussions of (and arguments regarding) the putative existence of the Brahma Tarka. See also Rao’s Madhva and Brahma Tarka. For an in-depth analysis, see Mesquita, Madhva Und Seine Unbekannten Literarischen Quellen. Mequita’s claims have elicited a Mâdhva reply which can be found in Sharma, ‘Brahmatarka and Other Unknown Source Books of
Madhva.’
76 Sharma, History, 437. See also von Glasenapp, 24–28.
77 See Sarma, ‘Madhva Virtue Ethics and the ptaguru, Reliable Teacher’ for a detailed analysis of âptatva, reliability, in Mâdhva Vedânta.
78 vaktçúrotçprasaktînâm yadâptir anukûlatâ | âptavâkyatayâ tena úruitmûlatayâ tathâ | AV 1.1.5.
79 nirdoùaþ úabda âgamaþ | PL.
53
40
An Introduction to Mâdhva Vedânta
Madhvâcârya describes the physical characteristics of the god Brahmâ
whom he believes to be the perfect teacher:
‘The guru [whose height is] ninety-six aïgulas, whose circum-
ference is one arm’s length, is seven units height by feet length,
is four units by forearm length, is endowed with the thirty-two
characteristic marks, has no doubts and is a clearer of doubt.’ [This]
is spoken of by the wise. Therefore, at all times Brahmâ is the
preeminent teacher for all. Others who are superior to oneself are
also teachers according to [their] rank. They are said [to be] lacking
[some] characteristics according to their rank. Humans are middling
and are rightly [endowed with] good and bad characteristics in
equal amounts. Kali is filled with bad characteristics.80
Madhvâcârya must have been a bearer of these thirty-two physical
characteristics and intellectual abilities. Descriptions of the perfect
body having thirty-two characteristic marks is a common trope in the
context of Southern Asian hagiographical literature. These thirty-two
characteristics are often referenced in descriptions of the Buddha and the
Jina in Jainism.81 In this case such perfection meant that Madhvâcârya’s cognitive abilities and cognitions were flawless. For this reason, his
testimony is âpta, smçti and a pramâõa.
One may wonder, though, if the holder of the thirty-two
characteristics could himself be a conveyor of the Vedas. Can there be
new Vedic seers who emit úruti? Madhvâcârya addresses this possibility
in his VTV, citing from the Brahmâõóa Purâõa: ‘If he who possesses
not less than twenty [out of thirty-two] characteristics, who is practicing
penances [and] knowing many Vedas, perceives through intuition a
Veda, then that is a Veda.’82 Such people, though, are not the authors of the Vedas. They merely intuit the Vedas which are, as mentioned above, apauruùeya, not having human authorship. In these unusual cases
there are âpta, reliable, human beings who can transmit Vedas! I have not encountered any references in the Mâdhva corpus to humans other
80 ùaõõavatyaïgulo yastu nyagrodhaparimaõóalaþ | saptapâdaú catur hasto dvâtriüúallakùaõair yutaþ | asaüúayaþ saüúayaccid gurur ukto manîùibhiþ | MBhTN
1.120. tasmâd brahmâ gurur mukhyassarveùâm eva sarvadâ | anye ‘pi svâtmano mukyâþ kramâd gurava îritaþ | MBhTN 1.121. kramâllakùaõahînâú ca lakùaõâlakùanaissamâþ |
mânuùâ madhyamâssamyak durlakùa
õayutaþ kaliþ | MBhTN 1.122. In MBhTN 1.126,
Madhvâcârya mentions that these details are taken, in part, from the Pañcarâtra: ity etat pañcarâtroktaü | MBhTN 1.126.
81 See, for example, Griffiths, On Being Buddha, 97–101 and Wayman’s
‘Contributions Regarding the Thirty-Two Characteristics of the Great Person.’
82 uktaü ca brahmâõóe viüúallakùaõato ‘nûnaþ tapasvî bahivedavit | veda ityeva yaü paúyet sa vedo jñânadarúanât | VTV.
54
Mâdhva Epistemology
41
than the first Vedic seers who have exhibited this power. Nonetheless,
Madhvâcârya permits such a possibility, thereby making his analysis all
the more comprehensive.
Mohaúâstra , the confusing texts
This exclusion of texts from the Mâdhva canon is also an important
part of Mâdhva theology and is linked to (and therefore included in)
Madhvâcârya’s theodicy. Madhvâcârya explains that texts which seem
to conflict with his perspective do not truly conflict with Viùõu’s
plans. Here the word ‘ úâstra,’ teachings, is used interchangeably with
‘ âgamas.’ Madhvâcârya states:
The úâstras whose meaning is confusing are made by those [who
are] ignorant of Hari. Because these [texts] have been described as
unacceptable [they] guide the asuras, demons, to Hell. As these
texts are composed by Úiva and others by the order of Viùõu, they
would not be contrary to what is spoken of [in the Vedas]. Thus,
they are not to be hindered.83
In a subsequent passage he again refers to the úâstra, teachings. He
states that Viùõu is responsible for these mohaúâstra, confusing
teachings:
‘I emit this confusion which will confuse people. You, Oh Rudra,
Oh Strong Armed One, cause the confusing úâstra to be composed.
Show those false [ úâstra], Oh Powerful One. Make [your] Self
renowned and conceal me.’ This is stated in the words of the
Vârâha Purâõa and, similarly, in the Brahmâõóa Purâõa.84
Madhvâcârya states that there are úâstras, teachings, that are excluded
from the Mâdhva canon. These mohaúâstra, confusing teachings,
expound positions that conflict with Mâdhva ones. They are