Madhvacharya cites 'Paramarthika Satya' and 'Vyavaharika' concepts

[V Subrahmanian]

Shankaracharya says in the Brihadaranyaka 3.5.1 Bhashya:

सर्ववादिनामप्यपरिहार्यः परमार्थसंव्यवहारकृतो व्यवहारः

It means:

//All Philosophers must necessarily accept the premise involving the dual concepts of transcendental (Paramartha) and parlance (vyavahara).//

Madhvacharya in his Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya, after accepting the Paramarthika satya concept has also given an evidence from a text that admits that Vishnu alone is the Paramarthika entity:

यदुपादाय पूर्वस्तु भावो विकुरुते परम् ।
आदिरन्तो यतो यस्मिंस्तत् सत्यमभिधीयते ॥ १८ ॥
 
This is the Bhagavata verse for which Madhva comments citing a verse:

'पारमार्थिकसत्यत्वं स्वातन्त्र्यमभिधीयते । तद्विष्णोरेव नान्यस्य तदन्येषां सदाऽस्तिता''॥ इति च ॥ यद्ब्रह्मोपादाय । पूर्वः प्रकृत्यादिः । आदिरन्तश्च यद्ब्रह्मणि यस्मात् तस्मात् तह्म परमार्थसत्यम् ॥ १८ ॥

Madhva has also quoted a verse for the idea of 'Vyavaharika' in the same Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya :

'इच्छा ज्ञानं क्रिया चेति नित्याः शक्तय ईशितुः । स्वरूपभूता अपि तु भेदवद्व्यावहारिकाः''॥ इति प्रकाशसंहितावचनान्नित्यगृहीतशक्तित्वमेव ॥ १२ ॥

Distinct from paramarthika is the vyavaharika:

'हरेरवयवैर्लोकाः सृष्टा इति विकल्पनम् । साक्षात्सत्यमतोऽन्यस्मात् व्यावहारिकमुच्यते''॥ इति मात्स्ये ॥३६॥

And his is a school that has agreed on two types of reality as:  Swatantra (independent) and Paratantra (dependent).

As seen above, the independent reality is the Paramarthika Satyam which applies only to Vishnu.

Nirguna Brahman is the only Paramarthika, transcendental, reality in Advaita.

If the jiva and the world were to enjoy the same reality that is enjoyed by the independent Vishnu, there was no need for accepting  another, of a lower grade, reality called paratantra (dependent).

Only in the Advaitic view, in the rope-snake example, does the imagined serpent have no independent reality; the deluded person superimposes/transfers the reality of the rope on to the serpent.

Many think that even the words Paramarthika - Vyavaharika are found  only in Advaita. This article shows that such is not the case.

OM

[V Subrahmanian]

In the sun - human analogy, it is mere sustenance/survival that is conveyed.  This does not reflect the ontological idea of 'reality' paratantra satyatvam.  A child depends on the mother for its sustenance, survival but the reality of the child is not dependent on the mother. The child, the Atman, is real by itself according to Advaita. But in Dvaita the very reality of the jivas is dependent on the reality of Vishnu. That's what Dr.BNK Sharma has said:

Dr.BNK Sharma (BNK) On page 146 of the Book in the footnote are given by BNK the eight verses quoted by Sri Madhvacharya in the work ‘Tattvodyota’:

On page 142 of the Book BNK says:

// The TattvasankhyAna (11 granthas) enumerates the categories recognized by Madhva.  Herereality is dichotomized into ‘Swatantra’ (Independent) and ‘paratantra’ (dependent).  This is the highest metaphysical and ontological classification in Madhva’s system, whence his system derives its name ‘Dvaita’.  God Vishnu is the One Highest Independent Real.  All else is dependent on Him, including the Goddess Lakshmi, the presiding deity of a-cit prakRti.  // (emphasis mine) 

//Everything in finite reality is grounded in the Infinite reality and needs it for its being and becoming.//  p.62

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. // (emphasis mine) (page 67)

regards

subbu

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:52 PM Kalyan <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think I accidentally deleted my message, so re-writing.

Sir, in my understanding of dvaita, a good analogy for svatantra and paratantra satya-s are the sun and human life on earth.

The Sun does not depend on humans, but human life on earth cannot exist without the Sun. 

Sun is analogous to svatantra satya, humans are analogous to paratantra satya. 

- Sri Krishnarpanam

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/8e0f30b2-f04a-46ee-80fd-545a0481e064n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan]

A child can survive without mother. Many children have. This is not the analogy that is bring presented here. Human life is not possible without the Sun.  Of course, the Atman of humans is not dependant on the physical sun, but this is only an analogy.

Another way to see this is that in a "paramArthika" sense, all this is energy. That does not mean other viewpoints are false.

This is of course, my understanding of the view point of dvaita. 

- Sri Krishnarpanam

[V Subrahmanian]

The Mother child case is also only an analogy. In any case Dr. BNK has clearly explained the Madhwa position.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/0343485f-8925-432a-8047-e6d2660ee8d0n%40googlegroups.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Subbuji,

Unfortunately for Shri Madhvacharya, he wrote the Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya, where he claimed that people would not understand the Bhagavatam without reading his "Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya". This is just the opposite of what the Sage Vedavyasa himself said about the Bhagavatam

One who has read the Bhagavatam, knows that Shri Vedavyasa was very sad after completing the writing of the Mahabharata, as it is difficult for (many) people to understand the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata has the Kuta verses, which are too complex to be understood by most people. [For example, Vedavyasa wrote that at the time of the Mahabharata war, the zodiacal position of the Saturn was opposite to the Rohini Nakshatra, and even scholars like Prof. K. Srinvasa Raghavan and Prof. Narahari Achar could not understand tjis ant they interpreted the zodiacal position of the Saturn to be in Rohini. I feel vey sad seeing  daredevilry of Dr. Manish Pandit,  even now, to  prove  the position of the Saturn in Rohini, during the time of the Mahabharata war.] That is why the sage Narada advised the sage Vedavyasa to write the Bhagavatam, in such a way that people, mostly including the uneducated women and the shudras, would also be able to understand what is given in the Bhagavatam.

In order that people should not be misled by Shri Madhvacharya's statements, the guru of Shri Shridharacharya, asked the latter  to write a commentary on the Bhagavatam.

My 2 cents

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1zN18hxcbzWnvsQqrB3saHP0C8Tn0vRQvthRcrODjbVA%40mail.gmail.com.