Madhva

[Robert Zydenbos]

On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:24:11 -0500, Edwin Bryant 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)

(That must be the one by BNK Sharma, which I frankly find too free:
Madhva is there in the translation, but also his commentator
Jayatiirtha, and also some things that I do not see in Jayatiirtha
either.) In his _Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya_ (Delhi: M.
Banarsidass, 1991 repr.) Sharma has devoted two chapters to this
matter, of which ch. 35 is titled "Textual Evidence of Intrinsic
Gradation among Souls", in which he lists 23 passages from the RV,
Taittiriiyopani.sat, Ii;sopani.sat, BhG, BhPur, Mbh and Paa;ncaraatra
texts. That there would be 3 classes of souls seems to be linked to
the Saa:nkhyan idea of the gu.nas.

> However, if I understand correctly, he wrote three commentaries on
> the Gita (one of them a mini one).

(The A.nubhaa.sya is on the Brahmasuutras. Madhva wrote two
commentaries on the BhG.)

> 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.

Yes, passages like one quoted from the Paramasa.mhitaa:

nityadu.hkha.m susampuur.na.m nirastaanandam avyayam
tamo yaanty anyathaaj;naanaad dve.saad vaa Harisa.m;srayaat

which Sharma (p. 301) says appears in Madhva's comm. on the
Bhaagavatapuraa.na.

> 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).

But God is also not human (this is what makes him God :-)... ), and
so besides positive human sentiments he may have things that
humans find hard to understand. Sharma in his ch. 34 is quite
adamant, in his somewhat militantly apologetic style, that "The
doctrine of Traividhya is no doubt an unpleasant truth, uncomfortable
to some. That cannot be helped." (p. 298). The problem, if there is
any, will be similar to that of Calvinist Christianity, which is still less
'compassionate'. I would not be surprised if the reasons for this kind
of thinking in Madhva and Calvin are similar.

RZ