Period of Sri Madhvacharya
Various sources confirm that he lived on this earth during CE 1238–1317. This is the period that marked the onslaught of the Mughal rule. The following chronology of events speaks of the troubles and challenges that the people in the fold of Sanatana Dharma faced:
979-1030 Ghazni raided North India
1021 Muslim capital established at Lahore
1077-1157 Ramanujacharya lived and established Vishishtaadvaita in South India
1192-1206 Muhammad of Ghor established Muslim Capital at Delhi
1200 early orders of Sufis thrived in North India. Jayadeva composed Gitagovinda in Bengal
1325-1351 Tughluq ruled from Delhi
1336-1666 Vijayanagara Empire was in its prime time
1526 Babur founds Mughal Empire
Mughal Empire continued till 1757
1757 The first wave of British Raj was experienced to end the Mughal rule
The entire Bharat was thoroughly disturbed in the North and the South remained relatively the peaceful part – credit goes to Vijayanagar Empire that ruled from 1336-1666. Under these circumstances we need to understand the period of Madhvacharya 1238–1317. Indian Philosophy was in a state of intellectual confusion.
Materialism refuted the existence of hell and heaven. Nihilism (shoonyavada) refuted both sentient and insentient beings. At this juncture the Bhagavat Kaarya of re-introducing the right knowledge was taken up by the third incarnation (avatara) of Vayu Sri Madhvacharya (The first being Hanuma and second being Bheema).
Seekers were puzzled with the invasions at both intellectual (with the philosophies like Buddhism and Jainism that propagated Nihilisim and later Advaita and Vishishtaadvaita) and at the physical level by the ruthless Mlechcha Kings who destroyed our Temples – the centers of knowledge and Dharmik Kingdoms.
In Dvaita Siddhantha gifted by Acharya Madhva the Brahman can very well do without prakriti-jIva, but it does not mean Prakriti-jIva are not unreal. The point and the fact is: `very well do without’ which means to indicate Sarvatantrasvatantrya of Narayana. In Madhva’s philosophy it is Narayana’s explicit Iccha (Will) which keeps Prakrit-jIvas into existence.
This is due to Narayana being AnantaguNaparipUrNa. This is unlike Brahman in Advaita, where from Brahman’s point jIva and jagat does not exist. The following Shloka from Bhagavadgita is handy in this regard.
sarvayonishu kountheya moorthayaH sambhavanthi yaaH
Thaasaam brahma mahath yoniH aham beejapradhaH pithaa
–14.4 of Bhagavadgita
The embodiment of all beings that happens in all sources originates only from the moolaprakrthi and I am the Father of all by placing the seed in the womb called moolaprakrthi. This is how Krishna revealed to all the Seekers.
The quintessential of the Tatva Vada (Philosophy) that Acharya Madhva gifted to humanity in general and seekers, in particular, was aptly captured by His follower Sri Vyasa Theertha in the following shloka. It is this philosophy that re-established the Ancient Way of seeking.
As per the above shloka the 9 tenets are critical to establish the Realistic Theism that is the most tenable for seekers to follow:
1. Hari (Vishnu) is Supreme:
The historical situation and the problems and the challenges being faced by the Dharmiks during the period Acharya Madhva lived are sufficient to engage people fully. The polemical debates between Advaita and V.Advaita schools during his time and the consequences thereof had been adding further problems.
It is at this juncture Acharya Madhva narrated the Supremacy of Lord Vishnu with Pramanaa and established the most tenable philosophy that integrates all Gods into a system that extolls Narayana as the Sarvottama. It is the ignorance of this fact and accepting the same made many seekers get in to a state of confusion. This first tenet paves an easiest way to understand and confirm to the 8 other tenets.
We are again at a critical juncture in the history of humanity where the Mlechcha menace is increasing day by day. Dharmiks needs to get united and face this menace with determination.
2. The world is true (real):
The influence of Avaidik and Soonyavada and Maayavaada philosophies propagated by Jainism (7th-century BCE–c. 5th-century CE) and Buddhism from the 6th Century was not able to disturb the roots of Sanatana Dharma but caused so much confusion in the process of seeking. In response to this, the Advaita Philosophy propagated by Shankaracharya who lived from 650 till 1100 CE helped the Dharmiks with 6 different schools (Devotion towards Vaishu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganapathy, Skandha, and Soorya).
These 6 schools of worship helped establish Advaita philosophy with different definitions about Maya and Avidya. The important aspect of Advaita is the way it explained this world as Mithya or Maya. This explanation and the confirmation of each God Head in the 6 schools of devotion cited above lead to several developments in understanding the real Tatva.
The period of 1017–1137 CE, yielding a lifespan of 120 years for Ramanujacharya witnessed the birth of Vishishtaadvaita that dismissed the postulation that the world is Mithya (an illusion) as explained by Advaita. He declared that the world is the Divine Form of God Almighty. Hence everything is true and nothing is illusionary.
The MayaVaada propagated by Advaita is so powerful even today and it gives a false feeling to any seeker that he/she can understand what the world is an illusion through famous examples like:
- Rajju Sarpa Bhranti,
- Idam Rajatam,
- The gold hidden in all golden ornaments with different names and
- Anyone can become one with the Supreme God who is Nirguna and Niraakara.
Acharya Madhva’s unique contribution to instill absolute faith among seekers about what they seek is to guarantee that they are real, their individual seeking process is real and they are unique and different from other seekers.
This provides natural ease in the process of seeking and makes it meaningful. By bringing duality under the banner of Independent and Dependent, the Dvaita school has addressed the dual issue of mainlining the majesty of Vedic Brahman on one hand and rationalizing the polarized reality (which is given) on the other that includes the existence of several God Heads.
3. The differences are real:
The philosophy of Madhvacharya attains its tenability from the manner the world was explained with differences and they were proved with their own nature. The Pancha Bhedas confirms this.
- Jeeva (Soul) – Jeeva
- Jeeva – Eesha (Supreme Soul)
- Jada (Insentient) – Jada
- Jada – Eesha
- Jeeva – Jada
Any seeker will be able to comprehend these 5 differences that make the PraPancha (Prapancho Bheda Panchakah). Even two identical twins born to a mother are different. That is the uniqueness of the soul which is unique and eternal.
“All the Vedas speak of the difference of Hari from all else. That difference lies in His independence, omniscience, and overlordship over all, etc. His essential nature itself constitutes His difference from all. Essential nature is what distinguishes an entity from others. The word ‘sva’ (self) in `svarUpa’ (self-nature) meaning essential nature is used in order to distinguish an entity from all others. The Shruti
starting from “not thus, not thus,” points to the difference of Vishnu from all else (from the sentiments and the insentient, or from the destructible and the indestructible). All other Shruti texts also present the same truth. There is no doubt upon this point.”
4. The classes of souls are cohorts of Hari:
The souls are classified based on their qualification. One class of souls, mukti-yogyas, qualifies for liberation, another, the nitya-samsarins, subject to eternal rebirth or eternal transmigration and a third class, tamo-yogyas, who are condemned to eternal damnation (andhatamasa).
Ananda Valli from the Taittiriya Upanishad explained different levels of happiness among various species of life.
“Let it be supposed that there is a youth, a noble youth, in the prime of age, most swift and alert, perfectly whole and resolute, most vigorous and of good learning, and that to him belongs the entire earth laden with all riches. Then we have in him one measure of human joy.”
te ye satam manusa anandah |
sa eko manusyagandharvanamanandah |
srotriyasya cakamahatasya |
“One hundred such units of human joy make up a single unit of joy which the manushya gandharva possesses. A sage full of revelation and free from all cravings also possesses the same joy.”
Other species include:
Deva, Asura, Gandharva (manushya-Gandharva and Deva-Gandharva),
Yaksha, Kinnara, Charana, Kirata, Kimpurusha, Rakshasa, Naga, Suparna, Vanara, Vidyadhara, Valakhilyas, Pisacha, Rudra, Aditya, Danava, Marut, Nivatakavacha, Daitya,
Kalakeyas and Vasus (not stated in gradation).
On the earthly planet there are many realms of existence that are inaccessible to the ordinary humans. These realms exist on high dimensions of space. According to the Vedic conception of reality there are 64 dimensions of existence, of which ordinary humans interact with three. The manushya gandharvas live in higher dimensions within the earthly realm of existence.
There are many descriptions within the Puranas of lands existing on this planet that are inaccessible to us. For example, there are three different levels of the Himalayas. What we experience as the Himalayas is only the lowest dimensional level. It is described in the Mahabharata that Bhima was able to visit many of these higher dimensional realms when he was collecting wealth for the rajasuya yajna.
“Thus, it is clearly indicated that all jîvas do not have identical degrees of enjoyment. This can also be derived from inference, as a matter of fact:
Consider that all do not have identical positions of joy/suffering; why? If all jîva-s are inherently identical, what causes them to be different in their positions in reality?
- If because of the Creator, Lord Vishnu, then He may be accused of favoritism, malice, etc., and that is unacceptable
- If because of past karma, then why is the past karma different for jîva-s that are identical? What caused those to be different?
- If because the jîva-s themselves have different desires and thus choose different paths, how can they be called identical at all?
Thus, it follows from logic as well, that all jîva-s are not identical.
But even granting that all jîva-s are not identical, why would any jîva do Vishnu’s bidding? No one wants to be a servant; all want to be free. Yet, as Ananda Tîrtha puts it:
svatantramasvatantraM cha dvividhaM tattvamishhyate |
svatantro bhagavAn.h vishhNuH bhAvAbhAvau dvidhetarath ||
All entities are divided into two kinds — the independent and the dependent. Lord Vishnu is independent, as He alone is different from both the positive and the negative.
The use of `bhAvAbhAvau dvidhetarat.h’ is to indicate that Vishnu is not simply different from the things existing; for instance, if one simply says that Vishnu is not like anything in the universe, there might be a suspicion as to whether He is similar to some inexistent entity that might be imagined.
Therefore, as only Vishnu is truly Independent in every respect, it follows that all else must follow His dictates, one way or another.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says:
IshvaraH sarva-bhUtAnAM hR^iddeshe.arjuna tishhThati |
bhrAmayan.h sarva-bhUtAni yantrArUDhAni mAyayA ||
The Creator resides in the hearts of all creatures; He makes them act, as though they were parts mounted on a machine.
5. The jîvas are headed for higher and lower states:
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says:
UrdhvaM gachchhanti sattvasthA madhye tishhThanti rAjasAH |
jaghanya guNa-vR^ittisthA adho gachchhanti tAmasAH ||
Upwards (to liberation) go those situated in sattva; the rAjasa-s stay in the middle; those situated in abominable qualities and deeds, the tâmasa-s, go to the lowest state.
But can it not be argued that the `sattvasthA’ refers to qualities born out of attachment to other entities, rather than to innate qualities, thus showing that eternality of the states described is not indicated? Not so. In a previous chapter of the ‘Gita itself, it is said:
traiguNya vishhayA vedA nistraiguNyo bhavArjuna |
nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogaxema AtmavAn.h ||
The Veda-s deal with the three qualities — [knowing them], be without the three qualities, O Arjuna; be free of the pairs-of-opposites (love/hate, friendship/enmity, etc.), continuously situated in sattva, without concern for accrual or maintenance [of material entities], and given to contemplation of the Lord.
Now, the three guNa-s, or qualities, are sattva, loosely translated as “goodness,” rajas, translated similarly as “indifference,” and tamas, also so translated as “evil.” Now, Krishna is telling Arjuna to stay apart from the three guNa-s, and yet be always situated in sattva; does this make any sense?
It does, if one considers that guNa-s can be either acquired, or of one’s own innate nature. Krishna is telling Arjuna to slough off all his acquired guNa-s, and be situated in the sattva that is his own nature (it cannot be the other way!).
6. Liberation is the complete experience of the joys of one’s own nature:
“Acharya Madhva lays great stress on the survival of every individual personality, as such, in release. This is the corollary of his belief in the distinctiveness of the Svarupa of each Jiva. As release is the realisation of the intrinsic bliss of selfhood by each one of us, it must be a positive experience, to be felt and be realised by each and at the same time incommunicable to others.
We cannot, obviously, press the point further and ask how the blissful experience of one -self differs from that of another. It is purely a matter of intuitive experience of each individual and we have to leave it at that.
Hence, it will be presumptuous on the part of anyone to attempt to define in clear and precise terms what exactly the released state would be like, from this side of release! Nevertheless, man is irrepressibly curious and inquisitive about what lies is store for him in the great beyond.
People expect the philosopher to throw some light on these questions. As an interpreter and an expositor of the traditions of the Vedasastra on this point, Madhva bases his account of the released state on a coordinated interpretation of the Scriptual facts and evidence. He also adduces the reasons in support of these interpretations. He gives a thoroughly consistent picture of the released state, in the Vedic, Upanisadic, and post-Upanisadic sources.
It must be said that his is a distinctive view of Moksha rich in its details, uncompromising in principles, trenchant in its logic, and full of Mystic inwardness in some respects.”
Madhva, therefore, regards Mukti as complete self-expression, self-manifestation, and self-realization, in short, a complete unfolding of the self in all its promise and potency. Realization of truth does not mean the abolition of the plurality of the world but only a removal of the false sense of separateness and independence.
It is a new insight that changes the face of the world and makes all things new. The Mukta sees everything through the eyes of God as dependent on God in its proper perspective which he had failed to do in Samsara.
Consequently, then, we need neither take them too literally nor dismiss them as garish fancies. Madhva has left us in no doubt as to the manner of life led by the freed souls in release. Like the Lord, they are forever contented. They don’t have to seek satisfaction; for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Wisdom and enjoyment of perfect bliss are their own nature.
With all that, there is no fear that their condition would be one of stagnation all round. A Theistic account of Moksa cannot, any day, make conditions there more stagnant than an Advaitic view of it!
Madhva is satisfied that there is scope for activity and the full play of capacities for every one of us there according to his or her abilities. The release may rest in the contemplation of their own blessedness, like the Advaitic Brahman. They may contrast their present with their past and feel thankful for their deliverance.
They may adore the majesty of God and sing His praises or worship Him in a thousand ways. They may offer sacrifices if they wish to – the only difference being that nothing is obligatory there. There is no prescribed round of activities or code of conduct in Moksa which means there is unlimited scope for spontaneous creative work of every kind – Karma4, Jnana and Bhakti5. There is no call for activity in that there is no one to call upon you to do this or that. The urge is from within entirely.
7. That (moksha) is achieved by flawless devotion and correct understanding:
MADHVA has given a unique place to Divine grace in his system, in making it the ultimate cause of self-realisation and God-realisation. But then, the Deity has got to be moved to graciousness (savyaparikaraniyah).
This can only be done by Bhakti as the deepest attachment to the Lord, deep-rooted and based on a clear under-standing of His greatness and majesty. Jayatirtha has given us the most comprehensive definition of Bhakti, based on the above, in which the religious, philosophical and emotional aspects of devotion are beautifully integrated.
Bhakti is, thus, the steady and continuous flow of deep attachment to God, impregenable by any amount of impediments and transcending the love of our own selves, our kith and kin, cherished belongings2, etc., and fortified by a firm conviction of the transcendent majesty and greatness of God as the abode of all perfections and free from all blemish and by an unshakable conviction of the complete metaphysical dependence of everything else upon Him.
This definition can be accepted as a classical definition of Bhakti. When one is flooded by such an intensive and all-absorbing love he gets completely immersed in blissful contemplation of Him and is lost to all his surroundings.
It is this condition of ecstatic communion that has been described in Gita (II,69) and in ChanUp (vii.24.1) as ‘where one does not see, hear or understand anything else, that is the infinite’, as pointed out by Jayatirtha.
Such Bhakti is necessary to manifest the natural and intrinsic relationship of Pratibimbatva of the souls to God, which lies dormant in the state of bondage. Madhva has been the only Bhasyakara on the Vedanta Sutras, who has thought it fit to give Bhakti a locus standi in the Sutras.
This is as it should be, if the Brahmasutras are to be a complete and self-contained exposition of Badarayana’s philosophical system, embodying all the principal aspects of his thought, derived from the Upanisadic and other sources.
In view of the clear and significant contribution that the early metrical Upanisads like the Katha and Svetasvatara had made to the doctrine of Bhakti in the Upanisads, it would be impossible to brush aside the concept of Bhakti as something either unknown to the Sutrakara or as a topic that he did not consider to be an important Sadhana of Moksa, in his philosophy of Theism.
The only rightful place for dealing with the topic will be in the third or Sadhana-Adhyaya. That earlier commentators on the Sutras like Sankara and Ramanuja have not been able to find a place for Bhakti within the body of the Sutras shows nothing more than than a defect in their inherited traditions of interpretation or in their way of approach to the Sutras.
The argument that, as Bhakti has been fully elucidated in the Gita, it need not be dealt with in the Sutras would be of no avail, when it is remembered that the Sutras are anterior to the Gita. As for the Pancaratras, one would expect the Sutrakara, who feels called upon to discuss its Vyuha doctrine in the Sutras (according to Sankara and Ramanuja) to be equally solicitous of the claims of Bhakti vs Jnana.
It would be very strange, indeed, if the Sutras should leave out ‘Bhakti’ while discussing so many sundry and comparatively less important topics of Sadhana and Upasana, besides many topics dealt with, threadbare, in the Upanisads and the Gita itself – each as the way of exit.
Nothing but a sort of prejudice against Madhva can be responsible for the general reluctance of many scholars still, to give proper credit to Madhva where his interpretations are decidedly better than those of his predecessors.
8. The three Pramanas (Pratyaksha, Anumaana and Aagama):
Dr. BNK Sharma in his unique contribution to the seekers (The Philosophy of Madhvacharya in English) stated, “Hindu philosophers have built up their various systems of philosophy or their various conceptions of the world, telling us what they take for granted and then advancing step by step from the foundation to the highest pinnacles of their system”.
Man is essentially an epistemological animal. His irrepressible thirst for knowledge is itself a thesis about knowledge. Whatever differences of opinion there may be about the status and validity of particular experiences, there can be no two opinions that there are and needs must be, certain experiences which are veridical; for, if logical certainty is denied or impugned, logic itself would be without foundation.
All our experiences presuppose the existence of certain a priori or objective standards by which they are judged. Wholesale denial of such criteria would cut at the very roots of our experience and bring all reasoned activities to a standstill.
Sense Perception is defined by Madhva as knowledge produced by the right type of contact between flawless sense organs and their appropriate objects. The flawlessness of the senses and their contact etc. is to be borne out by the truthfulness of knowledge, within the meaning of “yathartha” already given, which is itself ascertained by the Saksi.
Inference consists in the knowledge of the mark of inference as pervaded by the Sadhya and invariably connected with it, leading to the ascertainment of the Sadhya (nirdosopapattih).
Verbal Testimony Madhva makes out a strong case for according to verbal testimony an independent status as a Pramana The Vedas are self-valid. Their validity cannot be derived from the authority (aptatva) of any author, human or divine.
To the modern mind, the ascription of Apauruseyatva and Anaditva to the Vedas may seem absurd. But Madhva introduces a new line of argument which is indeed thought-provoking in that it goes to the very crux of the problem – the raison d’etre of any Apauruseyavakya in the domain of Pramanas.
Accordingly the ultimate sanction for all religion, ethics and morality and for the acceptance of all supersensuous values like dharma and adharma will have to be founded on some textual authority which is not the composition of any particular individual and does not derive its authority or validity from being the words of any person regarded as reliable (apta).
Unless our ideas of dharma and adharma are grounded in such impersonal authority, it would be impossible to establish the very existence of values and concepts on any satisfactory basis.
A philosopher who will not admit the existence of such supersensuous values as dharma and adharma would have no scope for his Sastra, as the object of a Sastra is to show the ways and means of realizing those truths which cannot be secured by other means, falling within the scope of perception and inference.
Nor can such a philosopher claim that his system would, by the negation of dharma, adharma, and other supersensuous values, confer a real benefit on humanity by ridding society of its superstitious belief in them. Madhva points out that far from benefiting humanity, such teaching undermining the faith of the people in dharma, adharma, etc., would let loose violence and disorder everywhere by lending support to the policy of ‘might is right’.
In the long run, the people will curse the philosopher whose teachings would expose them to such misery. As such teachings will only lead to adverse results and as he has no faith in any other unseen benefits, his Sastra would be futile, either way.
Insofar then as dharma and adharma and other supersensuous values will have to be admitted by all rational thinkers and since there is no other ultimate sanction upon which they could be grounded, save the impersonal authority of a Sastra, one has to accept an Apauruseya-Sastra as furnishing the basis of universal faith in dharma, adharma, etc.
There is no other way in which their existence could be established. It is hardly possible to determine their nature and existence on the supposed authority of individuals, however great they may be; for, every human being will have the limitations of ignorance and of being liable to deceptiveness.
It will not be justifiable to postulate for this purpose the existence of some teacher who will be omniscient. That will be postulating much more than what is warranted in our experience; for omniscience in any individual is not a matter of our ordinary experience.
One would have to postulate, moreover, not only omniscience to an individual but also that such an individual is not given to deceiving others and further that he is the author of a particular statement or doctrine or body of texts about the natures of dharma, etc.”
This is the unique contribution of Acharya Madhva that had settled all the confusion and yet by virtue of our Mind-Body Types and Guna Types we tend to either accept or reject this contribution.
9. All the Vedas speak solely of Hari:
I recall the shloka of Vadiraja in his famous Teertha Prabandha where he says:
Dheyamaamnaya geyam” The ultimate objective of our Vedic Literature is to extol the qualities of Narayana.
There are many passages from the Vedic literature that point to Narayana as the Sarvottama. Sarvatantra Swatantra. He is the one who does Jagadvyaparam – the activities that ensure the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the universe and rest of the Gods are “Jagadvyapara varjitaah”
It is for this reason Acharya Madhva advised the seekers to comply with the following:
स्वविहित वृत्या भक्त्या भगवदाराधनम सा येव परमोधर्मः
शुच्यात द्रवते इति शूद्रः
This is the Universal Norm for all the seekers in this world
स्वविहित = swa+ vihita = that which is prescribed for self
वृत्या = the profession that gives livelihood
भक्त्या = with devotion (if one does along with) Bhaja = to serve the organization, parents, elders etc., So it is called Sarvartrika bhakti.
भगवदाराधनम = the adoration to the God
सा येव परमोधर्मः = that is the ultimate duty of any person
Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavatam spoke of Narayana as the Devottama. Narayana in his Avatara as Krishna had revealed to all the seekers through Arjuna His pervasiveness and potential that is unmatchable as the Para Brahma. Vyasa captured it as Bhagavadgita. This itself is the highest Pramana for the seekers to seek Naryana as the bestower of liberation.
Vedic literature identified 84 lakh types of Jivis (living beings) to be part of the creation. There are five elements (pancha bhUta) that make up the body of a living being and help in physical, physiological activities. There are three attributes (tri-guNa) – Satvika, Rajasa & Tamasa, which drive the psychological functions. Here Satvika means Pure, Rajasa means Passionate and Tamasa denotes Ignorance.
Indian philosophy (tattva shAstra) says that the Jeevis, owing to the permutation and combination of three attributes i.e. tri-guNA-s makeup nine categories
The Supreme Godhead Narayana who is the creator and operator of the creation also must be an impartial caretaker. Hence, Indian philosophy says, that the GodHead gives an equal opportunity for the Pure, Passionate, and Ignorant Jeevis to lead their lives and reach the ultimate destination i.e. Moksha (liberation from the life-death cycle). He provides those equal opportunities in the form of sAdhana i.e. realization.
This realization is an outcome of Adhyayana i.e. learning. Such learning that covers both visible & invisible entities/forces that make-up the entire creation alone can take the Jeevi closer to the liberation.
Thus, the Supreme Godhead Vishnu has descended on the earth as Veda Vyasa and wrote 18 Maha Puranas as the tools that take the learners to next level i.e. realizing the essence of Vedas.
On the other hand, learning is a process of subjectivity in which the beliefs, opinions, and imaginations of the mind take the driver’s seat. If so, which forces make such a mindset? It’s the three attributes that build the base on which a living-being constructs its orientation towards reading those scripts that suit its taste.
Thus, we can now see that there are nine types of seekers pursuing the process of realization within the framework of Aarti, Jijnaasi, Arthaarthi, and Jnaani. Even among the Jnaanees the Jnaana is many a time-limited to see their Kula Daivam as the Sarvottama and these seekers stop their process of seeking with that.
Those seekers who are blessed with Satvik mind and Anasooyakata do not stop their process of seeking only within the traditions they took birth. Those who understand and compare the Jnaana gifted by the Three Acharyas (Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva) with a mind that seeks tenable samanvaya, will ultimately gifted with the Jnaana about Narayana as the Sarvottama. This precisely our scriptures declare:
“eka vijnaanena sarva vijnAnam bhavati” – from CHANDOGYA UPANISHAD
(knowing that ONE (substantive or cause), knowledge of every product (effect) is ‘as though’ gained)
We welcome your comments at email@example.com