Viṣṇutattvanirṇayaḥ of Śrī Madhvācārya – 1

Topic 1 : Maṅgalācaraṇam

Version: 1.0
Release Date: Śrāvaṇa-Kṛṣṇa-Ekādaśī, Krodhi, Kali-gatābda 5125 (August 30, 2024 CE)

The Original

॥ श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः ॥

सदागमैकविज्ञेयं समतीतक्षराक्षरम् ।
नारायणं सदा वन्दे निर्दोषशेषसद्गुणम् ॥

|| śrī-gurubhyo namaḥ ||

sadāgamaika-vi-jñeyaṃ sam-atīta-kṣarākṣaram |
nārāyaṇaṃ sadā vande nir-dosāśeṣa-sad-guṇam || * ||

Literal Translation

I always laud in appreciation of Nārāyaṇa, the one who is known, as distinct and exceptional, only by the sadāgamas; [OR, the sole primary purport of the sadāgamas;] the one who surpasses the perishables and the non-perishable; and the one who is defect-less and filled with infinite virtues.

Semantic Translation

I always hold Lord Nārāyaṇa in the highest regard. He is known exclusively through the sacred texts called sadāgamas. He is also the ultimate essence of these texts. He is beyond all beings including inert matter, all jīvas, and even Ramādevī. He is absolutely flawless, and endowed with infinite virtues. Each of those virtues is permanent, independent and boundless.

Lecture Notes Informed Primarily by the Ṭīkā of Śrī Jayatīrtha^[1]

It is well established in all authentic traditions that an auspicious act (maṅgalācaraṇa), such as offering salutations to the Lord, at the beginning of a work ensures its successful completion without obstacles. Since this is a well established tenet in authentic traditions, violations of this causal relationship are explained as aberrations. In other words, if someone performs such an auspicious act and still fails to achieve the intended outcome, it is attributed to a lack of sufficient devotion. Similarly, if someone does not perform such acts but achieves the goal, it is attributed to the merit of their previous deeds. Now, if that is the case, can we not rely on our past merits or the possibility that no obstacles may arise for us, and hence omit the maṅgalācaraṇa? Of course, one surely can. However, as they say: ‘śreyāṃsi bahuvighnāni bhavanti’ = ‘auspicious endeavors are usually fraught with many obstacles’. Therefore, why take risk? What is the harm in following a harmless and potentially useful authentic tradition?

Through this verse, Śrī Madhvācārya wants to teach this tradition to his students by setting the example himself.

However, there is a subtle point to note. Śrī Madhvācārya is teaching this tradition, even though he is personally free from all obstacles. This point is indicated when he states sadā vande (‘I bow down all the time’). Clearly, his salutation is not really for the purpose of removing obstacles. If that were the goal, the salutation would be necessary only at the beginning, not continuously! This phrase, therefore, suggests that bowing down to the Lord is intrinsic to his very nature.

Nārāyaṇa is described with three key attributes: (a) sadāgama-eka-vi-jñeya; (b) sam-atīta-kṣara-akṣara; and © nir-doṣa-aśeṣa-sad-guṇa. To appreciate the logic of giving these adjectives, we should keep the following conceptual framework in mind.

The śāstras do not present their subjects by pointing directly, as we do with a visible object and say, “This is a cow.” Instead, they convey their subjects through lakṣaṇa. For instance, they say, the Lord is one who is independent. And, how do we know who has that characteristic? Only via the pramāṇas. Hence, it is necessary to state what the pramāṇas are to know the Lord. Furthermore, even when an entity is known through a pramāṇa it might still be doubted as impossible. For example, a statement ‘uttānā vai devagavā vahanti’ describes divine cows that carry loads with their feet upward. Without knowing that divine beings are not governed by earthly laws, we find it hard to believe. Similarly, one might question the possibility of an independent being even existing, because we have never seen such an entity. Hence, to prevent such doubts, we need to first establish that such a possibility exists, even if not proven. Therefore, it is appropriate to state these three: characteristics, possibility, and means of knowledge.

In fact, this verse has exactly those three ideas embedded, if we read the adjectives in reverse order. So, let’s begin with nirdoṣāśeṣasadguṇa.

Bowing to a deity presupposes a clear identification of that deity. The term nirdoṣāśeṣasadguṇa identifies Nārāyaṇa as flawless (nirdoṣa) and possessing all virtues (aśeṣasadguṇa). Since virtues are inherently flawless, the term should be understood as ‘He who is flawless and possesses all virtues,’ not as ‘He who has flawless virtues.’

Here, nirdoṣa implies the absence of flaws such as dependence, while aśeṣasadguṇa signifies the presence of qualities like complete bliss. These qualities are infinite in number and hence the use of the word aśeṣa, which means boundless.

Regarding the use of sadguṇa, which literally means good qualities, two clarifications are in order: (1) The word guṇa can ambiguously refer to both good and bad qualities, so sadguṇa is used to exclude any negative connotation. (2) Even if guṇa inherently means good qualities, the term sadguṇa underscores that these qualities in Nārāyaṇa are not only good but also eternal and infinite.

The next term, samatītakṣarākṣara, addresses an important question: Can any entity truly be nirdoṣāśeṣasadguṇa? In other words, the descriptor samatītakṣarākṣara provides a logical foundation that supports the plausibility of the previous descriptor, nirdoṣāśeṣasadguṇa.

The term samatīta means ‘well transcended,’ indicating a state beyond certain limits. Akṣara refers to the imperishable, specifically identifying Lakṣmī who is eternal. Kṣara refers to perishable entities, which include jīvas (individual souls) who, at some point, possess perishable bodies. By extension, these terms also connote inert matter. Therefore, samatītakṣarākṣara signifies one who transcends both the perishable and the imperishable, distinguishing Himself from inert matter, all jīvas, and even Ramādevī.

By characterising Lord Nārāyaṇa as samatītakṣarākṣara, the author establishes the possibility that He can indeed be nirdoṣāśeṣasadguṇa.

Now, the last question: : While the possibility of the Lord being nirdoṣāśeṣasadguṇa may have been established by samatītakṣarākṣara, what evidence supports the claim that He actually is nirdoṣāśeṣasadguṇa? This is explained by the term āgamavijñeya.

Here, āgama refers to sacred texts, and jñeya means ‘knowable.’ The prefix vi- in vi-jñeya carries two meanings: ‘distinct’ and ‘exceptional’. Therefore, the phrase as a whole means that He is knowable through the āgamas as being distinct (flawless and possessing infinite virtues) and exceptional (transcending kṣara and akṣara).

But can’t He be known through perception (pratyakṣa) or inference (anumāna) as flawed? Haven’t we seen Rāma and Kṛṣṇa experiencing sorrow in the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata? The term eka answers this: He can be known only through the āgamas, not through perception or inference.

Without the guidance of the āgamas, perception and inference cannot reveal Nārāyaṇa as flawed or sorrowful. For instance, it is the āgamas that inform us that the Rāma who appears sorrowful is actually Nārāyaṇa in the first place. So the perception of ‘flaws’ in Nārāyaṇa is based on āgamas. But the āgamas have already identified Nārāyaṇa as flawless. Now, one cannot use perception that is based on āgama to go against the teachings of that very āgama. And, if uses perception that is independent of āgamas*, then there is no identification of Rāma as Nārāyaṇa at all, and hence there is no question of identifying Nārāyaṇa as flawed. Thus, perception and inference cannot serve as valid means (pramāṇa) to allege flaws in Nārāyaṇa.

Even if He cannot be known through perception and inference, could He not be known as flawed through other āgamas, such as the Pāśupata? This is addressed by calling Him, sadāgamaika-vi-jñeya and not just āgamaika-vi-jñeya. The adjective sat specifies that we are not talking about any āgamas, but sadāgamas – the right set of āgamas. Texts such as Pāśupata are durāgamas (the incorrect āgamas) and NOT sadāgamas. They are composed to mislead non-serious seekers. Therefore, one should not rely on them to understand the nature of Nārāyaṇa.

There is an interesting grammatical point to note in the compound word sadāgamaika-vi-jñeya. The word has three components: ‘sadāgama’, ‘eka’, and vijñeya*.

The Pāṇinian rule 2.2.30 – ‘upasarjanam pūrvam’ – states that a word labelled as upasarjana must come first in a compound word. The labelling of upasarjana is given by the rule 1.2.43 – ‘prathamā-nirdiṣṭaṃ samāsa upasarjanam’ – the word indicated in the first vibhakti in the rule that prescribes the compounding is called upasarjana. Now, we should examine which rule is prescribing the compunding in the current case and which word is in the first vibhakti in that rule. It turns out that the rule is 2.1.49 – ‘pūrva-kāla-eka-sarva-jarat-purāṇa-nava-kevalāḥ samānādhikaraṇena,’ and the word ‘eka’ is prescribed in the first vibhakti, hence it becomes ‘upasarjana.’ Therefore, while compounding ‘sadāgama’ with ‘eka’, it appears that ‘eka’ should come first. Then, why did the author use the word eka later, and created the compound be sadāgamaikavijñeyam?

There is a subtle semantic point to note here. In Amarasiṃha’s ‘Nāmalīṅgānuśāsana,’ the word eka is similarly used without being placed first in the compound: ‘doṣaika-dṛk pūrōbhāgī nikṛtas tv anṛjuḥ śaṭhaḥ,’. So is the case in the first kārikā of Mammaṭa’s Kāvyaprakāśa: ‘niyati-kṛta-niyama-rahitāṃ hlādaikamayīm ananya-para-tantrām.’ And, if carefully observe, in both these cases, the meaning of the word eka is not ‘one’, but ‘only.’ Therefore, the rule 2.1.49, must be interpreted to mean that eka must be placed first if the word indicating the number one, and not when the word is used in the meaning ‘only’ or ‘sole’.

In the current case, our intention here is not to say that the Lord ‘known through one āgama,’ but rather ‘known only through the āgamas.’ Hence, the expression sadāgamaikavijñeyam is in accordance with the rules of grammar.

The term eka also means primary. When we use that meaning, the phrase translates to ‘the one who is the primary meaning of the *‘sadāgama’*s’. This interpretation is made use of to start a discussion on kāryatā-vāda later. We will revisit this meaning then.