Conclusion Vidyaranya's Contribution

Conclusion Vidyaranya’s Contribution Literature is a part of human life. When we read a particular book, the two maxims i.e. time and space should be taken into consideration. It means that the socio-political environment of that particular time should be taken into account. Becau§e"sometimes it affects the views, and the philosophy of the autjjef^Too, Vidyaranya’s time Is 14th Cen. A.D. I.e. round about 7 0 0 years after Adya Sankaracarya. Tradition beliyesihat, in the history of Advaita philosophy, the name of Vidyaranya occupies the second position, i.e. after Adya Sankaracarya. Vidyaranya’s era was the era of foreign onslaught of the Khilji rule. There was no social and political stability. Thus Vidyaranya’s prime duty was to establish political and social harmony. And then he reestablished the theory of Advaita, which was originated from Gaudapada and then established by Adya Sankaracarya. According to Dr. Sulochana Nachane “As has already been seen the development of Advaita in various ways reached its pinnacle in the last period and there was nothing special to be added. As a matter of fact Gaudapada and Sankaracarya established the goal of Advaita and the gen eral outline and only minor problems like the precise relation between the so-called Jiva and Brahman and Avidya or Maya were dealt with by the immediate followers. After this the inactive period started - inactive in the sense that no further activity in the line of classification was available and^ the only activity was to defend Advaita from the opponents like Advaltrns and Naiyayikas.”^ It seems, that the words ‘only to defend’ would be unjust to Vidyaranya. Adya Sankaracarya had to face logicians and Buddhists and Jainas., whereas Vidyaranya had to face the doctarins of Bhaskara, Ramanuja and Vallabha also, who were staunch antagonists to Advaita. Vidyaranya rejuvenated the doctrine of Advaita. According to M. R. Bodas W rTOT ^ ^ 0 ^ ^FT Tradition believes that Vidyaranya belongs to pratibimbavada but ac cording to T.H.P. Mahadevan “He advocates Abhasavada in pancadasi. At the same time he criticiZes Avacchedavada in pancadasi. There seem to be a gradual transition in the works of Bharatitirtha (Vidyaranya) from the pratibimbavada to avacchedavada.”^ 314 Being the pontiff of /m geri mutt, Vidyaranya might have thought that it is his responsibility to spread the doctrine of Advaita. So though many com mentaries were available on Upanisadas, still he had created a separate book viz Anubhutiprakasa. He deplatfsîn the 1 st verse; 1”^ defines bala as ‘3Ttftri^^rT^T^r^To^r^tTr: 3FTtficjRTNW% 1^ defines as ^ 5 I® It seems at the very outset Vidyaranya has mentioned the concept of adhikari. The aim of Vidyaranya was to nurture the doctrine of Advaita and that too, to spread it up to a lay man. So he has selected the topics releated to Atma Vidya / Brahma Vidya which will clearly state the doctrine of Advaita. The style of Anubhutiprakasa is very simple and the metre he has chosen is Anustubl^. He ha(d quoted some verses from Bhag>^^tSiti. e.g. B.G. 15-16, 19 and AP - 5-64,65 .. B.G. 15-14 - AP - 10-83 B.G. 15-7 - AP - 10-95 .. B.G. 7 -1 4 - AP -1 3 -1 0 1 B.G. 3-37 - AP - 13-289 .. B.G. 2-47 - AP - 17-172 rffefe ypNlci'1.. B.G. 4 -3 4 - AP - 19-2 The reason might be that, being familier with these verses, a common man can understand the subject easily. Though he had commented upon Chandogya in 3rd, 4th chapters, he had given ample references from Chandogya in other chapters also. e.g. chapter 10, 13 to 18. The reason might be the principle of the Atman is discussed in various ways in Chandogya which will become easier to understand the subject matter. And in Bfhadaranyaka chapter 13-18. He has proved on the basis of Chandogya .. T that an effect has no independent existence apart from the cause and hgfice it is illusory. Thus he refuted the theory of causation accepted byîsesika school, according to which an effect is totally different from cause. For the beginners of Vedanta, Vidyaranya has mentioned the concept of According to Vidyaranya, being impossible to aj^dfiden the actual deed it is better to give up the desire for the fruit / result of the deed i. e. WTT. 315 Explanation and use of the term maya is also a conribution of Vidyaranya. e.g. He introduced the word maya in the 1st chapter. i.e. I Actually there is no reference to the maya in Aitareya Upanisad. Even Sankaracarya didn’t utter a single word about maya in his Bhasya on Aitareya Upanisad. Vidyaranya. had given the positive existence to maya. The SvetasvalaKJpanisad speaks maya is the primal cause of the world, and the creative power. Vidyaranya says: 3 T I ^ ^ TTNt 19 e.g. The sage absorbed in meditation discovered the creative power which is present in Brahman and which consists of three gunas - Sattva, Rajas, Tamas. For that he had quoted B. G. J 'W ft W ^ It can be noted that maya of the Upanisadas exactly similar to the prakrti of the^rtikhyas which too is admitted be the primal cause of the world and which consists of three gunas. But there is a major difference be tween the concept of maya and prakrti. maya is totally dependent upon B irm a n while according to satikhya system prakrti is fully independent of /Jûsa. Sankaracarya had emphasiZed this distinction in Brahmasutrabhasya (1.4.3) Vidyaranya specifically mentions that purusa, that is Brhaman is the substratum of maya. ^ ^ I r ^ While commenting upon Chandogya Vidyaranya says that. ‘The pure being in order to create everything, willed “I myself will become many” for that purpose I shall multiply myself through maya. ^ r n w II 13 316 In the 54th verse of the third chapter also VIdyaranya says that M K : ^TTW I Vidyaranya d ^ s n ’t find and 3Tf^T as the synonym. Vidyarannya did not usp«r1he word tulavidya He said in A.P. in regard to the manifestation of Avidya is well known as the object of the experience in the form ‘I am ignorant.’ ir^ This experience is known as The experience ‘I am ignorant’ points out the positive nature of avidya. Avidya can be removed by knowledge only. Vidyarannya gives the ex ample of alum powder. When it is mixed with the water, if settles the mud and the water gets purified. The knowledge of Brahman is the death of Avidya. As the alum removes all impurifies and then gets itself dissolved in the water, in the same way knowledge of Brahman removes avidya and di|§0hred in Brahman. World is suj>p6se to be an effect. According to ^ k y a , an effect exists in its cause prior to its origination and there is identity between the cause and effect. According to Naiyayika, there cannot be any identity between the cûse and the effect. Because one and the same entity can not be v i^ ^ as cause and effect at one and the same time. The theory of.,sawkya is known as (Theory of evolution). The theory is known as (Theory of creation) and the theory of^yântists is known as R«iJ«l|c^ i.e. (theory of lllusion).vedantists have the evidence from Chandogya i.e. ^ This sentence is reflected in Anubhutiprakasa every now and then e.g. AP. 3.13.ff, Then the question arises that if the world is illusery then how can the objects of the world be adapted to practical needs of life? Vidyaranya answers that the fear which is empirically real arises from the mistaken notion of a stump for a real thief. (AP 12.28) The world is not real. It is an appearence of Brahman through Avidya, Although illusory, the objects of the world can be adopted to practical needs of life. Vidyaranya says that, "All the major texts of the Upanisads convey the nature of Brahman. (AP. 5.61). As Anubhutiprakasa is for the common man, according to him the grace of God, resulting from Bhakti is essential in order to attain the direct knowledge of Brahman. The visible impediments can be overcome by vedantic study. Invisible are to be overcame by the grace of God only (AP. 6.85, 86, 11.39, 12.73, 74, 13.252ff 19.77). 317 Vidyaranya had tried to solve the contradiction In the Upanisads eg. In the 3rd chapter of Anubhutiprakasa he says that. “Sage Tittiri has said that the ether and air ar^ created first. Sage Aruni has said that fire is created first, with a view to s'^ forth only a part of creation. cTFTW 2.1 says that ether ancKîr precede the creation of Tejas. Thus there is no contradiction between the statement of Tittiri and Aruni. Vidyaranya places Yoga next to the knowledge as a means to emancipation. He advocates ‘Yoga’ in many ways in Anubhutiprakasa. e.g. 7.14, 11.22, 2 0 .5 4 etc. Similarly he has used many concepts from different streams ê.g. Urdhvaretas (AP. 7.20) from Tantra or mala (AP 1 3 .3 1) from $aivârsana. This indicates Upani$ads liberal attitude towards the method of exposition. It shows that Vidyaranya wants to include the people from all the stratas. There is no doubt that Vidyaranya was a staunch follower of Adya Sankaracarya but in Anubhutiprakasa he interpretes a few terms frorr^ a view point of a comman man.

Load more