Madhva

[Edwin Bryant]

On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Robert Zydenbos wrote:

> (b) only one of three categories of jiivas is termed nityasa.msaarin
> (the other two being muktiyogya and tamoyogya);

I have been trying to track down Madhva's sastric basis for this.  I seem
to remember reading that it is Gita 16: 19-20, but, in my edition of his
Gita (an English translation published by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha) he
does not refer to the nityasa.msArin's here.  However, if I understand
correctly, he wrote three commentaries on the Gita (one of them a mini
one). Can anyone throw light on his authority for this category of jiva
(I know you're in Madhva territory, Robert)?

> (c) this 'jiivatraividhya' is considered simply the way things are,
> and a notion of 'cruelty' is a projection of human sentiments where
> they are not appropriate (this kind of explanation is also found in
> other theistic traditions).

Well, saying that it this is simply the way things are is not a
philosophical argument. So Madhva's basis for this belief must have been
sabda since it can hardly be supported by anumana or pratyaksa.  Anyway,
as has been pointed out, all schools consider their ultimate causes to be
the way things are, viz, eternal, so introducing a terminus a quo of
eternality does not distinguish any of them, nor further their
philosophical position.

As for the cruelty arguments being a projection of human sentiments onto
God, as far as I can recall the argument (and I don't have the source,
here) the point seemed to be that the theists *themselves* consider God to
be compassionate and equanimous -- ie not cruel (theists certainly assign
*positive* human sentiments to the Godhead).  Accordingly, since this is
the theistic premise, how can the jiva be suffering in samsara?  If Isvara
decided to put it there, how can he be considered compassionate?  And if
jiva put itself there, from whence the original act of karma, etc, etc?

Whatever the value of such arguments, the point of quoting them was simply
to acknowledge that Sankara is not the only one who has to take recourse
of notions of anirvacaniya and eternality, etc.

Edwin Bryant