Understanding the ‘Rope-Snake’ through the Madhva System

Sree Gurubhyo Namah

Understanding the ‘Rope-Snake’ through the Madhva System

In His Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya Shankaracharya has made a trendsetting

statement:

।

//sarva-vAdinaamapi aparihaaryah paramaartha-samvyavahaarakRto

vyavahaarah// (Brihadaranyaka bhashya: 3.v.i).

//in fact, all schools must admit the existence or non-existence of the phenomenal world

according as it is viewed from the relative or the absolute standpoint.// (translation by

Swami Madhavananda, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad with the commentary of Sri

Shankaracharya, published by advaita ashrama, kolkota.)

This statement, made on the authority of the Shruti, sets the standard for the

formulation of any system of philosophy. After all, the aim of philosophy is to show a

way out of the present state of bondage to a state of liberation. The system should be

able to describe the present state of bondage in understandable terms and set forth the

path to liberation too in equally comprehensible terms. In Advaita, the terms used to

signify the two states are: vyavahaarika and pAramArthika. The former is the

transactional state of duality which is the cause of samsara. The latter is the absolute

state of non-duality which is the nature of liberation. The Mandukya Upanishad, in its

crucial 7th mantra, while defining the Turiya, the Absolute, Brahman, Atman, makes two

significant observations:  (avyavahAryam) (Advaitam). The former

precludes all duality-caused transactions, vyavahara, in the Absolute, Turiya. This

negation shows that the state of samsara is only vyavahaarika. That this is negated

shows that it, the vyavahaarika is not real; only superimposed due to ignorance of the

Turiya. The other word ‘Advaitam’ denotes the non-dual, vyavahaara-free nature of the

Turiya. The presence of another crucial word there  

 (prapanchopashamam)

crowns this state as one completely free of the world of duality.

The state of bondage has been likened to an illusory snake superimposed on a

rope. This example is in tune with the purport of the above Mantra where the

vyaavaharika world (samsara) is a mistaken view of the avyavahArya Turiya.

That the schools that followed Advaita have not been an exception to the rule

Shankaracharya stated (as mentioned at the beginning), is evidenced by the

acceptance by the Madhva school of these two states, only with a different

nomenclature: paratantra and swatantra.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:

// Madhva (1238-1317 CE)

According to Madhva there are two orders of reality: 1. svatantra, independent reality,

which consists of Brahman alone and 2. paratantra, dependent reality, which consists of

jivas (souls) and jada (lifeless objects). Although dependent reality would not exist apart

from brahman's will, this very dependence creates a fundamental distinction between

brahman and all else, implying a dualist view. //

That the two pairs Paramarthika-vyavaharika and Swatantra-paratantra are only

synonymous has been elucidated in an article:

http://atma.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/09/a-vichara-on-swatantra-and-paratantraindependent.

htm

In the sequel, it is proposed to present how the Madhva system’s pair of Swatantraparatantra

aids the easy comprehending of the rope-snake analogy to describe the

state of samsara (and the state of release therefrom).

The following quote from an article on the Madhva system is taken up for a close

examination:

http://www.indiadivine.org/articles/218/1/Philosophy-of-Dvaita-Vedanta/Page1.html

// 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 philisophical 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 'svatantra-tattva' (independent principle)

is called God or 'Brahman'or 'Isvara'. Though Brahman can do very well without pra krti

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 very first paragraph of the above quote gives us the idea that two levels of reality

are accepted by Madhva. The independently real, Swatantra, is undoubtedly superior

to the dependently real, paratantra. The entire structure that Madhva has laid out as

described in the above quoted portions, can be best understood with the aid of the ropesnake

analogy:

When a snake is seen in the place of a rope, only the snake is seen as real. But is it

independently real? No; its very existence (being and becoming) is dependent on the

underlying, unseen rope. However, the rope in itself is not dependent on anything else,

relatively, for its being. Thus, the rope is independently real. Since this state of error is

sought to be overcome, the right effort would be directed at knowing the substratum,

rope. When this is accomplished, what one will have is the independent rope alone; the

‘dependently real’ snake having sublated. The knowledge of the rope is the positive

gain of the correcting exercise; the sublating of the snake being only the

fallout. Conversely, the sublating of the illusory snake does not end up in ‘no positive

fruit at all’; the causal rope-knowledge is the undeniable positive gain.

Thus, while the rope-snake analogy is a useful tool to the clear grasping of the two-level

reality proposed by Madhva, the understanding of the rope-snake analogy itself is easily

possible by a consideration of the Madhva system’s Swatantra-paratantra pair. It is

easy to appreciate the perfect one-to-one correspondence between the two pairs:

Paramarthika-vyavaharika and Swatantra-paratantra of Advaita and Dvaita respectively.

That the ultimate and absolute non-dual nature of Brahman, the Swatantraparamarthika,

also is identical in the two systems is brought out by this ‘statement’, also

from the above quoted portion of the Madhva system:

//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. //

This ‘statement’ very clearly translates into: ‘Brahma satyam jagan mithyA, jIvo

Brahmaiva na aparaH’ (Brahman alone is Real and the world is unreal. The jiva, soul,

is none other than Brahman) and implies ‘AtmasambandhI kimapi nAsti’ (There is

nothing other than Atman).

An Advaitin would see the above ‘statement’ as largely depicting the essence of the

Advaita Brahman. In Advaita, Brahman is One Only without a second in its absolute

nature, Paramarthika. By the association of Maya, prakriti, the world is created. Yet,

since this creation is only maayika, Brahman remains asanga always. The very

accepting of the possibility of Brahman doing very well without prakriti or purusha (jiva)

implies Its eternally asanga and essentially Advaita svabhAva. Again, accepting this

possibility of Brahman being a ‘Great Stand-Alone’ results in the natural conclusion of a

situation where the prakriti and jiva are not there. And Its ‘preference’ to ‘do with them’

is not difficult to explain as it is due to Brahman’s icchA. Brahman’s icchA and mAyA

are one and the same. Advaita views the ‘dependents on It’ (paratantra) as what is/are

superimposed on It and hence the substratum Brahman is not limited by the

superimposed prakriti and the samsara born of it. Such a Brahman/Atman is not related

to anything, in reality, is borne out by the above ‘statement.’ Again, the purport of the

words ‘…. is no mark of inferiority or limitation’ of the above ‘statement’ is expressed by

Sri Shankaracharya in the preamble to His Bhashya on the Brahmasutras thus:

//tatraivam sati yatra yadadhyAsaH, tatkRtena doSheNa guNena vaa aNumAtreNApi sa

na sambadhyate...// [‘This being so, the locus (Atman/Brahman) is not affected in any

way either by the merits or demerits of the things superimposed.’]

Thus, even though the language used to give expression to the ‘Brahman/jagat/jiva

triad’ is different in the two schools, essentially they mean the same. Recognizing and

accepting this would lead to harmony; the opposite is only acrimony. (This is one area

where scholars could focus upon so as to work out a harmony.)

The following words, of the Article on the Madhva system, in particular bring out, in

unambiguous terms, the illusory nature of the dependent reality constituting the created

world and the bound jiva-s.

//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.//

Why would Brahman will the creation of a world and place in it the souls in bondage? Is

there any justification for causing a painful samsara for the jiva-s? That samsara is

undoubtedly painful is repeatedly instructed by Scripture; so this is not anyone’s

allegation. Normally replies like ‘It is His will, It is His Leela, etc’ are proffered but this

only raises further questions instead of silencing the questioner. No doubt such replies

are intended to enable the aspirant to proceed in the path of sadhana by developing the

attitude of ‘submitting’ to the Divine Will, yet when further probed, the usage of words

like ‘will’ only culminate in the concept of Maya. Ishwara’s IcchA, will, is nothing but

Vishnu Maya. There are Gita verses to substantiate that the Lord creates and manages

this samsara through His Maya. That the Lord wants us to ‘transcend’ His Maya rather

than to succumb to it or submit to it is one unmistakable indication that the

paratantra/vyavaharika reality is indeed illusory, just like the superimposed snake on the

rope.

Since it is stated in the above quote that Brahman’s Will is the essential condition for the

sustenance of samsara, the logical conclusion would be: Samsara is contingent on

Brahman’s Will/Maya. Therefore when Brahman ceases to ‘will’ any longer the

continuance of samsara, there is an end to samsara. So the remedy to end samsara is

to see that Brahman stops ‘willing’ the continuance of samsara. Thus, the ‘onus’ of

samsara is on Brahman, or to put it more clearly, on His will or Maya. Thus, samsara is

maayika, being a creation of Maya.

Would it not be logical, therefore, to ‘separate’ Brahman from Maya? This would ensure

that there is no longer samsara. We have seen earlier that samsara (world and jiva) is

‘dependent’ on the ‘will’ of Brahman. So, when Brahman’s Maya/Will is ‘separated’ from

Brahman, samsara, having no support, will collapse/vanish/cease to be. That this is a

clear possibility is what has been assured in the quoted lines above:

//Though Brahman can do very well without prakrti or purusa (Dependent Realities),…//

The aim of all sadhana is ideally to realize Brahman as free-of-will and free of being a

support for prakriti and jiva. This is what the word 􁮧प􁲱ोपशमम् prapanchopashamam) of

the Mandukyopanishat conveys. Knowing Brahman thus is what is called Mukti,

freedom from bondage.

The Correct World-view

Whose world-view is the correct one, the ignorant man’s or the wise man’s ? Obviously,

the wise-man’s view alone has to be the correct view of the world. And what is the

wise man’s, in other words, the liberated man’s view? This is answered by the Madhva

system thus:

www.dwaita.org (under the question: Why does Tattvavada deny Jivanmukti?)

/// Because a mukta, or liberated person, should not even be physically present in the

material universe, unlike the un-liberated. A person who is living in the world cannot be

said to be free of sorrow born of material contact, and also cannot be said to experience

the joy of his own nature at all times. The very act of living in a gross material body

entails things such as eating, sleeping, pleasure and pain, etc., which cannot be

accepted in a mukta. //

The above statement about the mukta makes it clear that he is no longer in ‘prapancha’

where alone the five bheda-s persist. All the worlds, ‘above and below’ the human

world attainable owing to one’s karma, too, come under the class of ‘prapancha’. For, it

is only in the wake of the five differences any samsaric experience possible.

Thus, the wise mean does not see the world/samsara; he ‘sees’ Brahman in the place

of the world/samsara. He/there is no longer a samsari; there is only Brahman that is

free of Its ‘will’ to support the samsara and samsari. For the wise man everything is

Brahman – VaasudevaH Sarvam. For, ‘Brahman can very well do without prakriti and

purusha’ as per the Madhva system we saw above.

A sloka composed by Sri Vyasa Tirtha, which is considered to be a gem explains Sri

Madhwa’s Philosophy in a nutshell:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GPCK_enIN334IN334&q=Navratna+of+D

vaita+Vedanta&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

// 􁮰ीम􁭠म􁭟वमते ह􁳯रः परतरः स􁭜यं जगत्

त􁱬वतो िभ􁳖ा जीवजना हरेरनुचरा नीचो􁲬भावंगताः ।

मुि􁲦न􁱺जसुखानुभूितः अमला भि􁲦􁳟 त􁭜साधनं

􁳭􁭃ा􁳰दि􁮢तयं 􁮧माणं अिखला􁳜ायैकवे􁳒ो ह􁳯रः ॥

SreeManMadhwamate Hari: Paratara: Satyam Jagat thatvato

BhinnaaH jeevajanaa: Hareranucharaa Neechotcha Bhaavam gathaa: |

Mukthir Naija Sukhanu Bhutir amala Bhakthishcha Thath Saadhanam

Hyakshaadi Thrithayam pramaanam Akhila AAmnayaika Vedya Hari: ||

Nine Tenets are propounded in this sloka and the meaning, in parts, of this sloka is -

Hari is the most supreme of all…..

This world (Jagat) which is made out five differences, is eternal and not a false.

Attaining the Nija-swaroopa (True-Nature) is called as Mukti.

Faultless Bhakthi (Devotion) is the means to attain Mukti.//

From the above, we come to understand that Hari is Supreme. He is indenpendent and

we are regulated and controlled by him. If we understand this and have unflinching faith

on God as well as Guru Bhakthi, we can easily cross over the Ocean of Samsara..//

The verse says that the world is real as per Dvaita. It means that it is only dependently

real as we have already seen. That it is eternal and not false is also true from the

bound jivas’ standpoint.

Thus, the fate of paratantra/vyavaharika ‘reality’ is now settled once and for all. What

remains is the Swatantra/Paramarthika Reality, Brahman.

To come back to where we started this discussion, the superimposed snake is none

other than our paratantra/vyavaharika reality, being just dependent on the underlying

rope, the swatantra/paramarthika reality.

While Advaita explicitly calls the vyavaharika a seeming reality, Dvaita stops short of

saying this by just saying that it is paratantra reality. Both terms culminate in holding

the dependent reality a mithya, unreal, entity. For the goal of both Advaita and Dvaita is

definitely not to retain samsara but to show the means to realize Brahman as free from

Vishnu Maya. That this is the ultimate goal is unambiguously declared in the statement

‘Brahman can very well do without prakriti and purusha’.

The means to liberation:

According to Dvaita the supreme means to liberation is blemishless Devotion amalaa

Bhakthishcha Thath Saadhanam.

Shankara, commenting on the Bhagavadgita verse 13.18 says:

//Who is fit to attain this right knowledge? He who is devoted to Me, who regards Me,

Vasudeva, the Supreme Lord, the Omniscient, the Supreme Guru, as the Self, the Soul,

the Essence, of everything, i.e., he who is possessed, as it were, with the idea that all

that he sees or hears or touches is nothing but the Lord, Vasudeva. Thus devoted to

Me, and having attained the right knowledge described above, he is fit to attain to My

state, i.e. he attains Moksha.//

In the VivekachUDAmaNi (32) Shankara says:

मो􁭃कारसाम􁯙यां भि􁲦रेव गरीयसी [Among the requisite means for liberation, Bhakti is the

foremost]

Sri Purandara Dasa sings: Daasanaagu VisheShanaagu…

http://www.kannadaaudio.com/Songs/Devotional/home/Daasanaagu.php

‘Become devoted to Hari, do not remain attached to the world…’

Shankara taught:

Bhaja Govindam bhaja Govindam Govindam bhaja mUDhamate

samprApte sannihite kAle nahi nahi rakShati Dukring karaNe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4FUQxn4CnY

‘Be devoted to Govinda…when death comes to take you away, worldly pursuits will not

save you.’

A Synopsys:

· The above study has taken the shape of the structure of the

Brahmasutras. The four themes/chapters/divisions corresponding to the Sutra

Book are :

· Samanvaya: The ultimate purport of the two systems Dvaita and Advaita is the

same: The Realization of the Supreme Brahman, untouched by prakriti/maya.

· Avirodha: The two schools are non-contradicting when closely examined,

keeping the ultimate purport in mind.

· Sadhana: Supreme Devotion is the means for Realization of Brahman.

· Phala: The fruit of sadhana is Mukti, Moksha consisting of experiencing one’s

innate Bliss is taught by both the schools.

· The world and jiva have only dependent/vyavaharik reality as per both the

schools.

· Brahman is the sole Independently Real Truth as per both the systems.

· Brahman is unconnected to the world and jiva in absolute terms as per both

the schools.

· The Mukta, the liberated soul, does not experience the material world as per

both the schools.

Om Tat Sat

                                                        

(Continued...) 

_{(My humble salutations to  Bramashri Sreeman Subrahmanyam ji   and  Advaita org   for the collection)}