296

CHAPTER VII

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

It is quite significant to find these two theories viz. Drstisrspvada and Ekajivavada going hand in hand in the works of Prakasananda. Madhusudana too, deals with this topic of one-soul immediately after the topic of Drstisrsp as put-forth by also. In a way the theory of drspsrsp is a sound background to the following topic i.e. the ekajlvavada. Naturally, the motive behind a logical presentation of the principles of this theory i.e. drslisrsU, to prove the world beyond doubt to be illusory/ is faithfully justified even by this theory of single-soiil. The exposition of drspsrsp severly necessitates the advocation of Ekajlvavada ; because ; the seer {drasta) whose perception is STSp must be accounted for. Technically it is called Upajivyopajhaka-bhava-sahgati.

Vidyaranya finds another good reason to the approbation of this theory of one-self By following this way of thinking, an aspirant of Truth ; can easily expedite the understanding of the vast significance of the term - Tat’ while

1. ------i -A . S. p. 535 VII 297 cogitating on the Mahavakya "that thou art’ in the context of realization, In other words, for theimmediate knowledge of the word Tat' the aspirant has to realize, in first place, the whole process of the universal creation and dissolution made by Ih’ctra through the lengthly procedure of Adhyaropapavada-. But. on the grounds of this theory of one-self one can realize more easily the creation as that of his own mental vibration brought about by his own nescience; and gets the meaning of the word ‘Tat’ clarified quickly. In this context, the word 'Tat' as vve have already noted above, connotes the real nature of the i.e. the Kutastha-, the substrate of everything. ^ This takes place effectively on the solid background of Drstisrsti.

At the very out-set of the previous topic (i.e. Drspsrspvada) Madhusiidana, before taking to the refutation of Vyasatirtha's objections raised against the Drspsrspvada gives a clear idea, as a sound basis, of what is exactly meant by drspsrsp. That kind of background is not necessary for this topic, and as such Madhusiidana directly starts refuting the points of

cTSTT II

- , Anubhutiprakasa - IX - 50, 51 VII 298 the opponent. He opens the debate by putting forth the objections of Vyasatirtha as prima facie and devilitates them by his invincible arguments.

Madhusudana has much scope which was ripe for the developement of the theory by way of answering the innumarable objections raised by Vyasatirtha, along with his own sharp objections ; whereas Prakasananda has less scope for, he was the first to start a systematic study of the theory. To ease down the force of arguments set-forth by the opponent Madhusudana first divides them sharply into so many alternatives and then devitalizes them one by one through his cogent arguments. His critical study of, and depth in the Advaitic thoughts represented by his refutation reveal his aw'areness of anomalies in the statements put forth by Vyasatirtha. Sometimes, in amplifying his point, to clarify his answer to the views of the opponent Madhusiidana himself raises the possible objections untouched by the debater, and setting them as prima facie arguments answ'ers with relevent Sruti passages and beautiful examples. If occasion demands he also turns the same objection to the views of Vyasatirtha to emasculate them, and to stabilize his own stand. ^ This shows as already noted in the fourth

- A. S. p. 542 VII 299 chapter his sanity which rescued his advocacy from inadequacy and imperfection of explanation. Vyasatirtha too ably adds his arguments one after another to the subllesl point oi his objections. His skill in minute abservations, while raising the subtle points is revealed greatly as and when he deals with the important topics. This wc have noted in the topic of Drstisrsp. For example, while proving the teacher and taught to be imaginary he lakes his objections to their minute points, and justifies in his own way the difference between the two states viz. dream and waking. His sense of humour even in this hot discussion is worth appreciating. For example, while amplifying the point refierred to just above, justifying the opponent in a debate, to be imagined by the other party Vyasatirtha observes that if the opponent becomes unable to answer properly to the objections of the other debater he (the opponent) may escape with such humorous statement that - ‘ I am imagined by you, hence, I need not answer at all. " Had he not raised such objections, certainly they would have never appeared into the thoughts of Advaitins, and thus they would be remaining untouched and unanswered by Advaitins. Thus in a way his creative skill of making severe charges against the Advaitins has helped a

^^cftrR I - Nyayamrta, ( 1977) p. 479 VII 300 great deal by putting on the mettle the later Advaitins to expand their literature into larger volumes by way of answering these objections. Vyasatlrtha is never tired of contending against the Advaitic points. Some times his force of objection makes the answer of Madhusudana to appear some what dull in nature. While dealing with the tradition of salvated souls^ owing to the force of his strong orguments the answer of Madhusiidana, though it is correct, seems to be simple. While making an attack on the Advaitic thoughts his st>4e is compact in form and comprehensive in content. It never suffers from verbosity and djjbgression. He never leaves even a tiny objectionable remark untouched. Some times his style seems to be full of ease and grace and decorous too. One has to venerate Vyasatlrtha’s st>^le of argumentation.

On the other hand vigour and grace have permeated, through the style of Madhusiidana.Ease has rare appearance in his argumentative style. Often it is found that the author of Advaita-siddhi is more fond of the style which is conversational and catechetical in nature. His treatment of logical syllogism as the most convenient vehicle of his arguments which has less scope in the present topic, is the salient feature of his

5. Nyayamrta - p 481 VII 301 style. He never leaves any point of the opponent undealt or unret'uted. He tackles the charges fearlessly. His answers, though they are short in form, are perfect in the operation of refutation. His adeptness in using apt examples^ is another feather in his cap. Like Prakasananda he gives paramount importance to brevit>' in his statements, thus justifying his sanity. While answering subtle objections it gives an impression, as already noted that he is always greatly equipped with his coroscaMg wit.

In fact Vyasatirtha’s objections are very much interlinked like a chain; consequently one answer becomes adequate to so many chained issues of objections. This feature is found more clearly in the previous discussion on drspsrsU. It appears , some times with reference to his contentions that he raised some objections simply for objection sake. Some of the objections have already found their place in the work - -muktavali of Prakasananda (1350 A. D.) as a set of prima facie arguments (Purvapaksa). It gives an impression that he knew' the correct answ'ers to his own objections ; for example, with reference to the Sruti passages noticing the plurality of Jiva, the answer by Madhusiidana, following his predecessors was that it is in view of the diversity' found due to , in the

6. Note No. 7 Chapter - VI VII 302 worldly experience (-siddhanuvadakatvefia). We can predict the same answer ' even with reference to the interpretation of the Sruti passages that are again quoted by Vyasatirtha to corroborate the non-identit>' of Jiva and Brahman.

On the other hand Madhusudana is quite conscious of the sanction of relvevent Sruti to his points. Madhusudana is aware of the fact that the opponent is more landing his objections on the Sruti and Smrti passages that is what he did in the previous topic. It is quite natural to do so; because the subject "Jiva' is known only by Upanisads (Upanisadekavedya). That is why he is operating with satisfactory and correct interpretation of those passages quoted by Vyasatirtha. In interpreting the passages dealing with the nonidentity of Jiva and Brahman; and the diversit>' or plurality of Jiva adduced by the opponent his firm stand on the technical point that those passages are, as noted already, in view of the same found due to avidya in the phenom^tia reveals his successful and immaculate way of interpretation. Any reader can agree with this subtle but important point that Sruti has no

- A. S. p. 542 VII 303

business to deal with the facts brought clearly into the worldly experience or proved by other evidences than Sahda (Verbal testimony). However, Madhusudana successfully tries to prove himself to be more reasonable in his arguments than the contender. Infme, the operation of refutation, and stebilization oi

Advaitic stand on sound ground of arguments have brought up his work to that norm which subsumed, naturally his name first

in the rank of later great personages among Advaita scholars with an encomium - Vedanta - pancanana\

We cannot ignore the exhilarated objections raised by the followers of Sri-Madhvacarya. We need not derive total consolation from the fact that Madhusudana, the master - mind of

Advaitic tradition, has held sufficiently strong defence against the series of objections set-forth by Vyasatirtha against this theory of

DrsUsrsti, Ramacarya tries to accentuate the arguments of Vyasatirtha by raising a few' more interesting objections. These subtle observations retleet the careful study of the author. Certainly this way of debate irrespective of their system of philosophy bring them everlasting place of honour in the field of

Vedanta thus showing the originality of a commentator.

Ramacarya's objections, though they are subtle in their contents and seem to be enervating the arguments of

Advaitins are not hard nut to crack. Sometimes he twists the VII 304 same objections in a different way and puts them against Madhusiidana. His style in the Tarahgiiii, a commentary on the Nyayamrta of Vyasalirlha is certainly congrous lo lhat of his master. He is certainly a master of grammar but does not use inflated language. He exerts all his strength to refute the views of Madhusiidana. While refuting some trivial points it appears to be just for refutation sake that he is raising his doubts. He brings out faithfully the correct purport of the point dealt with by Vyasatirtha. In a way he is successful in reading between the lines of his master; and in presenting them plendidly in an usually approved style of S^tric tradition. Sometimes he uses some harsh words in quej^ulous tones to the opponent which seem to be some what uncongrous to the general norm of a dignified style. It may cause a kind of exasperation on the part of the opponent.

On the contrary Vitthalesopadhyaya the author of Laghucandrika like his master Madhusiidana, and predecessor Prakasananda is more fond of brevit>'. He tacitly puts the views of Ramacarya as the views of Furvapaksin and confutes them in his vigorous style. His striking comments and invicible refutation go hand in hand. We find

- Nyayamrta tannngini, Niranaya sugar, Bombay (1910) p. 222 (1-43) VII 305

remarkable influence of argumintative style of Naiy^yikas on him. Yet he gives prior importance to clarity of expression.

Inspite of this, his commentary, in the tradition of Vedanta has become noted for its reserved nature. In fact the commentator adopted the style which time liked. Another plendid feature of his writings is that he deals even with a tiny point of objection, putforth by the opponent, and reprobates it. The force of his argument and sanit>' is so sund thateven now the

Mddhvaites are moving heaven and earth to rule out his assessment.

Anybody can impartially appreciate and venerate the skill of Gaudabrahmanandi, while he answers rightly to the

objection of Ramacarya that - “ the moksopadesa will be futile as it takes place at a time when the pupil is imaginning the

teacher ( with a sense of difference, bheda ) as imparting the knowledge of Brahman to him." The answer to this by

Laghucandrikakara is that Tattvajnma dwans in the pupil V't lie automatically by vicara which is in him only, simply the

is removed by upadesa, and tattvajnma is caused by vicara.

Hence, the upadesa which indicates bheda is not the direct VII 306 cause/ in a way it is anyath^iddha. Thus, Vitthalesopadhyaya deals with a fair number of even the subtlest points and answers them in the most unambiguous way.

Anantakrsna-Sastri brings in essence all the points of all the authors of these works and commentaries in his Caturgranthl. It is really an extra - fine contribution to this field. It richly reveals his systamatic and deep study of all these works. He adds his own valuable remarks too. No one can ever a. call his geni^ or erudition in question. His hard efforts contributed substantially to enrich the Advaitic literature. But, the literary style which he adopted here is really never appreciated by any modern scholar, for il is so difficult that a reader has to struggle hard to understand the central point of the sentences. The whole exposition of each topic is reduced to one long sentence with big compounds. A general reader of philosophy has to give up desperately the idea of understanding these sentences. The author seems to be bent at exibitting his erudition of Sastric studies, and mastry over language. He never kept in his mind any ordinary reader to read it while writing this. Thus, difficult topics like drspsrsp and others have become

R CH i! b! M l M ^ ^ ! I d ---I - Caturgranthl - p. 542 VII 307 all the more hard nuts to crack. But, the author might have composed this to make his work congrous to those ot his predecessors. The time liked this kind of erudite style, and as such he is highly successful in this attempt.

Vimuktatman, is an adament advocate of the theory of one-soul. He seems to be the first man after the period of Yogavasistha, in the school of dispsrsti to advocate the theory of Ekajivavada. He is not using, as already noted, the term drstisrsU directly, but clearly suggests it when he holds the exposition of the topic drgdrsyayoh- bheda-nirasah in the first chapter of his magmim-opus. Istasiddhi. He does not cover this theory of one - soul under the back - ground of drspsrsp whereas Prakasanand holds the two to be the two sides of the same coin. Vimuktatman is holding this against the theor>' of many - souls (purusa-baJmtvam ) held by Sahkhyas. His main target was to rebui^ the views of Dvaitins, and Dvaitins, before

Ramanuja and Madhva were Sahkhyas.'^ It is beyond doubt that Vimuktatman was the predecessor of because, Ramanuja himself takes, the views of Istasiddhi as the

10. 1 - B.S.S.B. II- I -4 VII 308

Mahapuj'va-paksa}^ Thus, the refutation of anekjivavMa is not

purely under the back-ground of drstisrsp, but as a cardinal

issue of Dvaitins. hence, his issues and their discussions are not dealt with here in detail. “ His style, because, it is characterised by extreme terseness and a rather profuse use of

pronouns may be said to vie in its succinctness with the style of mathematical works and readers. The task of following the

discussions couched in it not a little exacting.” The peculiarity

of Vimuktatman’s style is that “ he often develops his arguments

m such a dexterous way as to force the opponent, on his own

premises to reach the Advaitic conclusion But where the topic is not controversial, Vimuktatman writes of decorous verses full

of eligant w'ords and beautiful examples, especially the verses in quite an easy and attractive manner. Broadly speaking, as we have already noted, the work exibits far more interest m the

11. In discussing the nahtre of the self from various stand point in that work, Yamuna quotes the first stanza of the Istasiddhi- the same according to Vedantadesika Ramanuja had in his mind in setting forth his Mahapurapaksa and attempts to refute the .Advaitic view as contained in it” - Prof. M. Hiriyanna, Intro. Istsiddhi, Baroda (1933) p. 12

12. o.c. - Moreover, this seventh chapter is meant for the refutation of dehatmavada ( dehatmavada- khandana ) VII 309 theory than in the practical teaching of the Vedanta. It is only in the works of Vidyaranya that we find a good deal of amalgamation of the two. The exposition of the theory of one - self is firmly justified when we find the analogy of dream in that context.^" The same method of argumentation was adopted by later writers in this school of drspsrsU. Most of the objections raised by Vyasatirtha against this theory can be traced in the arguments setforth by Vimuktatman as prima facie. Thus, if Prakasananda is the father of Dr0srstivada Vimuktatman stands as the venerable grandfather in this school.

It was a kind of tradition to refute the view of

Sankhyas on the number of Self in early works of Advaita

Vedanta. That is why A nandabodha (1100 A.D.) in his Nyayamakaranda, like Vimuktatman, refuting the theory of many - souls of Sankhyas on the lines of dialectics holds the theory of one soul. But, it is not in the interest of Drstisrsli as exclussively held by Prakasananda. Even the Vivarana - school holds this theory of one - soul but not on the back-ground of DrsUsrsU.

13. a. 1TTT aTTsrtOTrT - - \Istasiddhi p. 351

b. - - - ^ ^ I - a c p 355 VII 310

Prakasanand’s approach to this theor\- is highly

systematic. The supreme Brahman is immutable, self - luminous,''* one without second, true and bliss and bliss alone. That is why it is upadeya or Parama-purusartha. In association

with nescience. It became the only Jha. Like in a dream the

only Jiva creates the world by his immaginalion. He, purifying

his citta through Karmakanda, gains or vividisa. After practising Sravana etc. he realizes Brahman, through

Mahdvakya, which is Ihe real nature of his own. In this way Prakasananda deals with all these points of this school in a echelon order. A reader may be under the impression that Prakasananda propogated this new theory of Drstisr^

14. This feature is enoramously discussed by Citsukha in the first chapter of his commentoiy Citsukhi or Tattvaprakasika Prakasananda too discussed this but in a nutshell. He ojfers his definition - thus ^ H ^ %^Tf^yir)qTTT ^ I - V. s. M. p. 113

cp. ‘HTfnTPIc^------I -comm. o.c. To put it in sum “though unknowable by any other epistemological process, yet capable of empirical usage, ”

cp. ^fd i -Citsukhi - Bombay (1931) p. 9 VII 311 and one - soul, and as such in his work one may expect only those points which are exclussively related to Drspsrsp. But as a matter of fact, some other cardinal features of Advaita, though they do not relate themselves directly to it have also found their places in the thesis of Prakasananda. The topics like Upadeyata, A nandasvarupatva, Svaprakaktitva etc. seem to be common to all kinds of theories in the system of Advaita.

Rut, Up^eyata is a new topic introduced in the work of a master hand i.e. Prakasananda. The other topics are discussed at large by his predecessors, yet Prakasananda finds some new objections and solutions in his own discussions to extricate his stand from the various objections of the opponents. For instance he justifies the self to be Upadeya ; and while defining it, first, he defines what is not UpMeya i.e. anupadeyatva, which is its negative aspect.

In the same disquisition, Prakasananda keeps in his mind the defipnition of emancipation held by the Naiyayikas i.e. ekaviihsati-duhkhadvamsah and defines the self to be other ♦ • than the absence of pleasure and pains (Sukha-duhkhibhavelara). The way of tackling this point is somewhat eccentric in its nature. Major part of the arguments with regard to his own principles is put on the sid« of the opponent, while proving the v n 312

self to be Upadeya. The author exerts all his strength in justifying it to be other than sukha and duhkhabh^a which are the higest aim of man ( purusartha ). At last he admitted everything concerned with the sukha and dubkhabhava as the purusartha but proved it just identical with the self.^^ Thus, this peculiar kind of exposition is a simptone of his genius.

Prakasananda, is successful in advocating the causality of to the world ; for. Brahman is bereft of qualities, totally detached, and so pure that it hardly comes in connection with the world. It is all the functionings of Maya.^^ At this stage Prakasananda is landing his thesis partly on that of the Sankhyas. The Pradhma is everything in the sense that it is the matrix of the whole universe ; but it is in the proximity of Purusa. A modern example can very well bring the deep significance of Prakasananda’s theory of causality. A big mechine functions only when there is current in it. The

I - V. s. M. p. 145

- K s. M. p. 207 VII 313 electricity is not urging it to do so and so. It is just passing through its way in it. The supreme Brahman is everywhere and as such it is the substrate of nescience. In this sense Brahman is said to be the cause (aupacarika). The theory of Drstisrsp collapses at once if the causality of Maya is set aside. Maya is everything; it is the father and mother of the Kalpaka, the only Jiva who posits this world with his perception like in a dream. Thus, the supreme Brahman is totally exculpated from its being entrapped in the world causality in the thesis of Prakasananda.^^

It is a point of exhilarated interest that Prakasananda’s main thesis has its clues traced in the views of Bhamatikara, but Prakasananda withstands with many of his views. Bhamatikara advocates that Jha which is adjunct (up^hi) is the material cause of this world; and the world for every JIva

17. On the topic of causality Dr. E. Soloman rightly remarks thus - “Prakasmanda, it can be seen, carries Ankara’s philosophy to the extreme position, that no objective reality of any kind can be assigned to the world phenomena; the world is tuccha, and so also is Avidya ; our own ideas have no objective substratum; the notion of causality is foreign to ^ankara-Vedmta there is no causation or creaion of the world; Brhaman is the only reality. ” -E. A. Soloman - Avidya. A problem of Truth and Reality ” Ahemdabad, (1969) p. 285 VII 314 is quite a different one. Due to excessive similarity (atisadr^a). The world or its objects are recognised to be same (pratyabhijnma) ; but it is absolutely false.This view of Vacaspatimisra directly lands on the Drstisrsti, but he advances his arguments to the theory of many souls {anekajlvavMa) and not to the theory of one soul.” Thus Bhamatlkara partly belongs to the tradition of DrstisrsU.

Prakasananda, insists with all the emphasis at his command on the singularity of Ajnma. His reason to this is a simptone of his sanity. As far as the creation is concerned, the singularity of nesciencc is immaterial ; becausc, creation is purely false ; but the chief advantage of justifying the singularity is to prove the singularity of the self The whole doctrine of one - self is housed on the foundation of the singularity of nescience.^®

- Siddhmta-bindu p. 29 19. Op. Cit.

^ c F q ^ r m w i - Com. V. s. M. p. 30 VII 315

Prakasananda refutes the views of Vacaspatimika on this topic of ekajlva on the grounds that anekajivavada is prolix ( Gaurava Strictly speaking there is no much point in refuting it on this ground ; because Bhamatlkara uses the word many - souls for handha-moksa-vyavastha, and the plurality is justified through antahkaranas. Prakasananda too advances more or less the same argum ent.B roadly speaking it does not make much difference. Yet Prakasananda does not want to use plural number for the Jiva.

However, in the theory of one - self, Mukti seems to be just like that in a dream. What grace is there in aspiring after it when it is reduced to naught ? Moreover, if the example of Vamadeva, ^uka and others are also just like in a dream, or just to provoke the aspirents ( arthavada ) ; what aspiration should we derive from them for Mukti ? These are the thoughts which, usually, have found their room in the minds of

2 1 . cp. ------1 - v. s. m p . 4i cp. Com. o.c.

22. ------3T^gcp>-u|i4'l'^i 41 - S.L. S. p. 128

cp. ^

We should derive satisfaction from the fact that it is only at the very top rung of discipline that Mukta, and Muccyamma are not many but one and one alone.That is why Vidyaranya calls it a shortcut to Mukti.

Nearly, seven different theories of Anekajlvavada are dealt with in the Siddhanta-lesa-sahgraha by Appayya

Diksita.^^ They can be deemed as the views meant for adhikarins of different orders; because Prakasananda rules out all of them in his thesis just taking them to be meant for the asperents at a lower rung. In this context, it pays in the long run to call to our mind the remark passed by Vidyaranya that -

- Vidyaranya - V. P. S. p. 309

-Vidyaranya, Anubhuti- prakasa- VIII

25. S. L. S. - 1, p. 127 - ISO

26. ---I -V. S. M. p. 297 VII 317 all these different views are the final vcrdiets leading us, in ditTerent ways, to the renditions of the Truth.They are like the rivers, flowing from different origins for which the reaching point is only one i.e. the ocean. 28

Prakasananda, lodges another protest against Vacaspatimisra on a different point i.e. the instrumentation of realization. According to Vacaspatimisra the mind is the instrument that brings realization. That is why, unlike the Vivarana - school he treats mind to be a sense organ. The word mind does not stand for the ordinary mind; but highly qualified by and Upasana. Thus, this kind of purified and cultivated mind of great capacity can bring realization immediately after receiving the advice of the Mahavakya.

27. prf^^rrorf a-rqiqeiltrr^f ^ f^ d c c iic i ^ -V.P.S. VII-284

11 Puspadantas Sivamahinmastotra -7

29. ^ ^

-S. L. s. IV- p. 454

3nc*T^5TR^ -VS.M. p. 158 v n 318

But Prakasananda denies this on the ground that it is not in consonance with the theory of Ekajlva and drspsrsti, for, the sense organ, though it is highly cultivated has hardly any part to play at this juncture in this theory. It is incapable of bringing the realization. The immediate knowledge brought through the advice of the MahavMya removes the Jh>a - hood, through the process of BMhayam Sammadhikara]^>am.^^ This can fairly be explained if the theory of one - self is accepted. Thus, the singularity of nescience, drspsrsti, singularity of the self, Sabdaparokmjnma, badhayam samanadhikarai^am, and a few other tiny points are interlinked, in the school of Drspsrsti.

As a matter of fact, Vimuktatman, Prakasatman, and Madhusudana, show, in their works far more interest in dealing with the theoritical points than with the practical teaching of the Vedanta. The piotal issues of the system have found this remarkable development in these works. The reason for that is that the contraversies on this theory, brought up by Ihe scholars of other systems were disseminated. In view of the extrication of the system the remidies for these were a must. Hence, the force of emphasis, in these works, is on the theory

I - V. s. M. p. 160 VII 319

and not on the discipline. It is certainly Vidyaranya, who, in addition to the hot debates on the pivotal points led us faithfully, to the path - way to realization in the wake of the Yogavasistha^^ in his works like Pancadasi, Jivanmuktiviveka, Anuhhnti-prakaka etc. However, in the school of drspsrsti these general issues of discipline (S^hana-marga) are wel-accepted as they are. rherefore, we do not find logical debates held on the lines of discipline, in these works of this school.

Prakasananda treats the Naiy^ika as Pradhanamalla (leader of the opponents ), cspccially while dealing with the issue of Khyati. He takes his invincible refutation of the view of Naiyayika to be same of all other opponents too. {Pradhma-malla-nibarhana-nya^a ). That is why he docs not take up for refutation the views of asat-khyati and others as they were already confuted by Naiyayika.

While proving the bliss of self to be out of the list of any kind of sptobs ( Jati) Prakasananda’s approach to the

31. The way of dealing with the - marga, discipline, in the Yogav^'is^a, is some what peculiar in its nature. It does not insist on any particular theory or school in this connection. It guides us all the possible ways for Mukti with all the possible examples of the world. VII 320 issue is all-together different one. It is an accepted fact that the Vedantins follow the principles of Mbnhihsakas while dealing with general issues, {Vyavmdre-bhattanayah); but on this above point he joins his hands with the Naiyayika and finds faults with the VyaktiktktivMa oiMlmamsaka?^

No doubt, the style of Prakasananda is fairly congrus to a treatise on a ^^tra ( VMagrantha ), but sometimes his discussions suffer from obscure arguments. It becomes well - neigh impossible to read between the lines of some of his debates without the help of the commentary. Arthur Venis calls them directly obscure.In fact that is true. We do find this kind of limitation in some contexts.

In a hot discussion Prakasananda suddenly turns from his catechising style to his subdueded poetic style of Bana, and adopts long gingling compounds and sentences of metaphors.^

32. V. S. M. p. 243 33. The obscure argumentalion of this text.... - Arthur Venis. tr. - V. S. M. p. 69 Benaras (1913)

-V.S.M. pl46 cp. - - I - DC. p . 44 cp. o.c. p. 155 cp. Note. No. 48 o.c. VII 321

After completing the hot discussion Prakasananda freely composes the verses of poetic excellances. Remarkable influence of the Yogavasistha is evident in his verses full of poetic genius.Some, statements with a touch of humour, usually found in a Vadagrantha are also interesting. Unlike Ramacarya, as noted already, Prakasananda uses polished words.

Sometimes Prakasananda's long discussions are so hot, that it becomes difficult even for a painstaking reader to know which is the view of opponent and which is of the Siddhmtin ? Perhaps the same feature might have confused Dr. Deneshchandra Bhattachary>a to hold that in the theory of Dr^srsti expounded by Prakasananda no Jfvanmukti can take place as no Prarabdha-karma is exausted even after realization. In other words, if body is existing even after realization it follows that nescience is not extirpated totally. To quote him - “He (Prakasananda) also refutes the theory of JIvanmukti on the ground that no Prarabdha - {karma that has begun to bear fruit) or trace of

35. V. S. M. p. 142 iSc 244

36. ------I -V.S.M. p. 76 cp. ---I - o.c. p.255 vn 322

ignorance can persist after self-realization.”^^ But in dear words

— '1C we find how Prakasananda holds Jhanmukti.

The book, Vedanta-siddhanta-muktavali, of Prakasananda is so called because it is a necklace with pearls of theoritical dictums. These dictums are the verses. The prose commentary deals with all the points of his theories which are the cardinal points of Advaita-vedmta, and are briefly touched uponthere in verses thus extending largely the scope of the work. Infme, it is he who licked this theory into shape and as such he (Prakasananda) is the man of higest credit in the history of drstisTsU.

Vidyaranya’s flowery language is a remarkable feature of his exposition. He refers to the theory of drsUsrsp just here and there but discusses the theory of one-self in his Vivarana-prameya-sahgraha in a nut-shell. However, PaiicadasI

37. a. This corrosponds to the disquisition on page No. 231 & 232 above. b. Dineshcandra Rhattacharya, ‘Post-^nkara-Advaita’ Cultural Heritage of India Vol. Ill, p. 257

f I - V. s. M. p. 236 VII 323 gives us elegant verses alluding to this theory of Ekajiva in so many ways. His decorous style marked with poetic excellencies has rendered the work Pancadasi to be a master-poem of metaphysics. The sponteneous flow of poetic genius in all his verses is a green evidence to the remarkable influence incurred from the Yogavasistha. That does not mean that he lacks in originality. His evergreen illustrations of Citradipa, Natakadlpa, Mah^aki, Meghakasa etc. have remarkably shaped the future of Advaita doctrine. He is second to none in introducing new doors of these theories in his edifice of arguments. He exerts all his capacity in devising so many analogies and illustrations to touch directly the core of thesis.

The only-Jiva of this theory is indicated by the word Svayam usually used by us in our transactions. It is the simptone of Kutastha. We use the word svayam (he himself comes) to lay emphasis at our command, which shows unknowingly the presence of Kupstha, the ekajiva}'^ That is why it is parama- premaspada. Otherwise what is the significance of the word svayam ? It directly hits the core of the doctrine of one-self This way of exposition is an extra-fine

39. ^ ^ I

- Vedanta- pancadasi, VI- 39 VU 324 contributive point of Vidyaranya. In a way he is a master mind of illustrations.

Nana-Diksita is not a negligible figure in this school. On each piotal point he has his own definition fashoned in a dilalectic of Naiyayikas in his annotations. But they are very simple and significant. His analysis of Prakasananda’s arguments is a systematic disquisition in an argumentative style. His annotations touch upon directly the core of the points.'*^ For instanace - the discussion as to the definition of Dadha as conceived by the oponent and his predecessor is carried on by Prakasananda for further examination, and the same is amply elaborated by Nana in his comments.

Sometimes Prakasananda criptically sums up the view of his predecessor, and Nana examines them with plaussible

40. - For the word Vivarta Nana offers his own definition -

- Comm. V. S. M. p. 205 cp. ITRTTTH I - V. S.M. p. 170

41. cp. 3 T ^ ^ ^ vIMKM’

^ I - comm. V. S. M. p. 206 VII 325 arguments. His exhilarated comments in a simple language have graced a great deal making his commentary "DIpika' true to its name. His language is full of ease and grace."*^ Any reader of Vedanta-siddhanta-muktavali, undoubtedly owes enormously to Nana for his own correct understandings at the text. But for Nana’s commentary perhaps Aurther Venis could not have been successful in bringing the correct meaning of Prakasananda’s sentences in his translation. In other words, Nana’s efforts contributed substantially to Aurther’s success.

Nana’s method of introducing the correct context while taking the simptone {Pratika-grahand) of the original text is highly appreciable. His lucidity has eased down the force of difficulty in the original text of a master-hand. His rendition of

42. The analog of serpent and rope is brouf^ht thus 11 f^0 M ^7% ^tisfcr?T7?T

cT^fcrsrTTfcTcrc^ccncT l - comm. V. S. M. p. 52 cp. wdlfclHloIchicking, 3TflnjhTT^PT?ciH I ^EPxTTTTg - - - I - o.c. p. 72 VII 326 the sentences of Prakasananda in his own decorus style has made the reader and learners to re-read with pleasure and pride. Thus, Nana has the higesl credit of bringing the cold logic of Prakasananda into a flowery language. JIvananda Bhattacarya too deserves considerable recognition in this regard.

Sadananda Kasmiraka, the author of Advaita Brahmasiddhi reserves a small sub-chapter for this theory of DrstisrsU and ekajiva. His cardinal virtues of this topic are the relevent quotations from various works to corroborate the out­ lines dealt with in it. In a way, he brings strong supports from his predecessors to this theory."*^ He also brings the views of Drspsrsp in the form of logical syllogism.'*'* His strong support, to the theory of onc-sclf makes its position all the more imprecarious.'*^ His vigorous style is fashoned by interesting but,

43. 3TWWm?rteT- I

- Advaitabrahma- siddhi, p. 261 44. - Chapter - IV Note No. 54

45. Sadmanda quotes from Visnupurana : -

cZfcrto^g I contd... VII 327 serene abuses/^ He finds a good support to this theory from the Bha^a of Sri Sankaraearya which abounds in the analogy of dream. This theory, though it is from the point of high rung is in reality the most agreeable thesis of the Advaitic doctrine. Infact the other theories like avacchedavada, , according to Sadananda, are just primary ones.^^ The spirit of

- Advaita-- siddhi, p. 264

46. jrf^ I - o.c.

47. cj'e^d'^ wRiRiHMi^c?cii(?Mi ^ 3Fnf^-TrTwmRT vsfrwwq^g

31WT? 3FTTiifcmT£mK| v5frcpTRg I # c n w T m ^ wfcmncmm

wq^ \ ^^sm ^c|u|f^ ^Wr?TT5TTc^T^ I ^ I ^rrfej-

^?ToT^^g 1 % ^ 1 ?Rrm^=znf^ cllcK^dg II I ------?r^cRT contd... VII 328 his cogent arguments, and brilliant exposition is so effective that it brings to light some of the untouched soft corners of this theory thus justifying him to be a start-wart of this school.

It is a disseminated fact that all the Vedmta works of Advaita come to full stop with anirvacantyatva of this world. Now, what about the self or Brahama ? Is it too inexplicable. The right answer is suggested by Prakasananda through the general spirit of his arguments. This is the core of Prakasananda’s thesis rightly brought out by Arthur Venis.'*^ Arthur’s contribution to this field is unquestionable. Almost all the technical terms of the text in view of their spirit are translated into English with accurate wordings thus justifying himself to be a painstaking translator. He had felt the difficulties of a translator and a reader of text on S^tra especially as a foreigner.

--

ii - o.c. p. 159

48. - Arthur Venis tr. V. S. M. preface p. 7 VII 329

Lucidity is the chicf charm of his literary style. It is wel-neigh impossible to make the translation more simple then the present one. But, it is not simply a literal translation ; he has kept up the gravity of thoughts of Prakasananda. It is not a mere translation but a thorough study of the theory. His foot-notes and explanatory notes are not less than any exposition of a philosophical system. A brief summary of the arguments on the left-side of page serves the purpose of an index. Though this paragraph of summary is tiny in form has a great deal of significance. It gives a correct picture of the position of the arguments as to wheather they are set forth by the opponent or belong to the Siddhmtin. Through his translation he has brought the mission of Prakasananda to the doors of all the English readers of Vedmta. The vigour of his literary style is maintained throughout his translation. Thus no one can ever call in question the authenticity of this decorous translation from the master-pen of Arthur Venis.

Lastly, the word drstisrsp has appeared for the first time in the Yogavasistha. If the date of Yogavasistha is round about the eighth century how is it that we find it again only in the works of Vidyaranya i.e. after nearly five hundred years. Even prior to Vidyaranya, in the work of Prakasananda though he is the startwart of it, we do not find the terms drspsrsti as it is in the works of Vidyaranya. It is a matter of VII 330 utter surprise as to how, this word was totally banished from the vedmtic works of five hundred years. How Vidyaranya coined it again and made free usage of that is really a point of accelarated interest. Or, in view of this theory the tradition of which was known to Vidyaranya does Vidyaranya, after realizing the gravity of that word in the Yogavasistha related both the theory and name ? However, the theory with its popular name i.e. Drstisrsp came to light in the works of Vidyaranya through Prakasananda only. Even Vyasatirtha uses it so freely that it must be very prevelent through its long tradition, in those days at least orally; because in one of the verse of the pupil of Prakasananda it is explicit that this tradition of Prakasananda was disseminated in the weadth and breadth of the country."*^ However, the tradition of this theory did not appear all of a sudden, and made a good name within no time ; but, it developed gradually through its traditional members, and found a good shape in the golden age of Prakasananda and Madhusiidana with a middle support of Vidyaranya.

49. I ^ ct ii - Arthur Venis, Tr. V. S. M. preface - p. 9 VII 331

CONCLUSION

The theory of Drstisrsp oscilates between the dates of the Yogavasistha and Advaita-siddhi i.e. from eight century to sixteenth century. After the period of the Yogavasistha the theory has a triangular support of Prakasananda, Nana Diksita and Madhusudana. Vidyaranya adheres to this not by elucidating the aspect of Drspsrsp but by enunciating its other aspect i.e. the Ekajhavada.

On the other hand Vimuktatman supports this by advancing his arguments to the chief point of drsUsrsti i.e. - 'drg-dr^ayob bheda-nir^ah' which is the core of Prakasananda’s theory of drspsr0. His advocation of the thesis of one-soul with the master example of dream is the vital force injucted to this theory unknowingly. The theory was as if left in lurch like an orphan after the period of Yogavasistha. It was brought up by Vimuktatman unknowingly. lie had not at all envisaged this in that light in which Prakasananda did it. Thus, Vimuktatman is a big station in the march of its efflorescence.

In the beginnings of the post-^nkara period, three main schools of Advaila have already made their names, and the theory of drspsrsp with all its distinctive features has VII 332

proved itself to be self-competent to make a place of its own to form an independent school, in addition to the existing three. It made a good grace in the work of Prakasananda and as such any kind of appreciation of this school must trace the contribution of Prakasananda. In other words, Prakasananda’s efforts substantially contribute to the success of forming a new school or Praslhma. Thus the credit of making this theory into a school goes to both Prakasananda and Nana DIksita, the commentator.

For a cursory reader it may not seem to be big enough to form an independent school because, the theory of Drspsrsti and Ekajlvavada are the only two main points which this school can contribute to the history of Advaita. But if we go deep into every corner of this school we do find sufficient material to house a new school.

The position of Mukti, in this theory seems to be some-what precarious, when we find that even Suka and Vamadeva have not realized the self. Even the Sruti passage dearly anounces that Vamadeva realized the self in his mother’s VII 333 embryo itself.^® This statement of clear context cannot be reduced to Arthavada. In the force of arguments one may agree with this to silence the opponent but in the heart of heart one feels some­ what exasparated in this context.

Many a definition given by Madhusudana to Drspsrsp is some-what the same as that of error or PrMbhasika-satta. This ultimately comes more or less to that of Anirvacaniyatva. Even the definition of badha^^ given by Prakasananda comes to the same direction. Infact, all these terms sail in the same boat. Though this theory is supported by ^ruti and reasonings ; broadly speaking l§rl I^ankara does not seem to go to this extent of reducing the whole Vysvaharika- salla to the Praiibhasika-salla. Thai is why in the Brahmasulra- Sankara-bha^a we get the Vyavaharika-satta^^ maintained against

- - I -Br. Up. - I -I V - 10

51. V. S. M. p. 128

-cZ|c[?R-^c| I - B. S. S. B. -11 - J v n 334

Buddhistic view. However, a lay-man cannot rise to this height of metaphysics even in the process of thinking, leave alone the path way of practice. Bui, as a matter of fact PrRtibhasika itself is the only satt& approved to this world by the ^ruti from the point of a realized soul, §ri Sankara too approves this indirectly by giving the set example of dream.

The Maya is styled as cmirvacaniya, for neither it can be defined as asat ; nor proved by any solid evidence. This eccentric nature of Maya, is therefore aptly illustrated by Prakasananda with the solid example of a lamp and darkness (Tamodipanyaya). A lamp cannot be used to perceive darkness.*^ This is the most paussible example that can be given to illustrate the correct nature of Maya in the field of Advaita in general and in that of Drstisrsti in particular. The master example of dream is quite appropriate and it adds very much to get the core of the Ekajlvav^a. It also gives us the exact position of the world in this theory.

For a reader of modem philosophy or western philosophy this theory does not seem to be eccentric ; because many a school in the field of western philosophy comes nearer

53. ! ^ II -V. S. M. - 39 VII 335 to this in one or the other way. But for a modern reader of the theory of falsity endorsed to the objective world or MaynvMa of Advaila itself seems to be out of common let alone this creation contemporaneous to perception. Yet its appreciation necessitates deep study even on the part of a as well as on the part of a layman.

The contributive points of Prakasanatida enumarated in the first chapter of this thesis are the distinctive features of this school also. The work Vedmta-siddhmta- muktavali is the only work which is solely devoted to this theory. In a way it reveals to usthe towering position of Prakasananda in the history of Advaita.

Madhusudana has reserved some soft corner to this theory in his Advaila-siddhi. His delibaration is not mere answers to the objections raised by Vyasatlrtha, but serves a good support to this theory by his additional points. Madhusudana and his followers are second to none in the list of those who have re-inforced this theory.

It is certainly a short cut to realization, as Vidyaranya puts it for it first inculcates into our mind strong

54. Note No. 24 above VII 336 idea of falsity towards the world which is taken to be real for ever out of eonfussion {s^strena na^et paramartha-bvddhih).

Infine, we can safely conclude that like all other schools of Advaita which bring* quite a few different facets of Advaita into focus this school highlights two piotal points i.e. drspsrsp and ekajhavada. However, all these schools, like rivers take different directions first, and then ultimately join the ocean of Advaita.

wAw

4 *