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 Vyasatirtha 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-nyaya. 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 Jiva i.e. the Kutastha-Brahman, 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 - Vidyaranya, 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, Varanasi ( 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 Vedanta- siddhanta-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 avidya, in the 6. Note No. 7 Chapter - VI VII 302 worldly experience (bhrama-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.