140 chapter VI A CRITICAL STUDY OF ^AMARA’ S M Y A Y A D k BY VALLABHA / ^ Vallabha and Sankara both are advaitins, s t i l l the former is ^uddhadvaitin, while the latter is the kevaladvaitin. This is, of course, not merely the terminological difference, nevertheless, they are d istin ctly exponents of two different theories. The main thesis of Vallabha is that the jiva is not the fallacious appearance of the Brahman. The illu stration is that very small piece of the gold is nothing but the gold it s e lf , in the same way, the is the Brahman only. That is why, it is the pure non-dualism. The illu stration is rather not precise, because, the gold is insentient, so there is no problem of perform.ing some karmans by it s e l f and accumulating some fru its to be experienced. On the other hand, the jiva is sentient, therefore, he has to do some karmans ultimately he gets its results and differs from the Brahman. That is why there is a lot of difference between the piece of gold and the part of Braliman i.e . the jivas According to Vallabha, this world is the actual transformation of that pure Brahman and that is not the illusory appearance of the Brahjnan. At the time of the transformation there is no change in the Brahman. He gives an example to support that point. 'Wlien the ornaments are made up of the gold, the gold does not change. This is rather a clumsy idea. Because, when the ornaments are made up of the gold, the gold definitely changes though the goldness does not change. Moreover, some 150 additional metals like copper etc. are essential for the making of the ornaments. The same is the case with the Brahjnan■ Vi/hen the Bral'iman turns i t s e l f into the world, i t undergoes some changes. Only the Brahmanness remains as the same. The other i.e . the world or the body of the jiva also is not realj but, is illu sory appearance. For, the real thing is that which does not perish at a ll. In this sense, a wise man w ill not dare to say that the Brahman remains unchanged at the time of the creation and also this destructible world vjill not be considered as the eternal rea lity by the same person. While thinking about the muktis, Vallabha thinks that i t is of two types. One is jivakrta and another is Bhagavatkrta. When the devotee by undergoing the rules and regulations, prescribed by the sastras, attains the state of liberation, it is jivakrta, that is knovm as sayujya. On the other hand,' when the Lord Krsna• • • Himself selects an adherent, that is known as Bhagavatkrt a , that is sadyomukti ■ These characteristics are mentioned by Dr. B.M.Dhruva. In the second type of liberation, means are not essential, but the w ill of the Lord is the deciding factor. Vallabha admits that the Brahman is of two types viz. saguna and nirguna . Nevertheless, really speaking the 1. An introduction to the Suddhadvaita School of Philosophy of ori Vallabhacarya - pp. 111 difference is dependent on the real and non-real nature of the gunas. This means that Vallabha speaks of Sarvavyapitva, nityakartrtva and bhoktr tva as the sagana characteristics, _ ' - ’ ' 2 while alpajnatva, j aramaranayuktata these as nirguna ones. One can understand i t while speaking of complete absence of the gunas, but here there is disappearance of some specific gunas only. The counter part of the same argument w ill be, some gunas s t i l l remain when you speak of nirgunatva. One cannot fina it as etymologically real. But this is sagunatva only, just by changing some gunas hither and thither. Another division of the Brahman is parabrahman and Aksarabrahman. Here Vallabha thinks that the parabrahman is of aahidaivika form. Aksarabrahman is the cause of the world, parabrahman is the cause of Aksarabrahman. Therefore, i t is the cause of the caused One is struck with wonder to know that according to Vallabha, the sense-organs are eternal, they don't have a beginning or an end. 3o at the time of the liberation the 4 sense-organs remain. At the same time, Vallabha thinks himself as aavaitin. The real problem is that i f at the time 2. See M.T.M. 2 pp.593 3. Ibid. 2 pp.394 4. Ibid. 2 pp.593 of the emancipation the sense-organs do not disappear, '/;hat does i t mean? Does Vallabha want to speak of jivanmukti? The main d iffic u lty is Vallabha nowhere states about the jivanmukti. Perhaps while thinking of Sadyomukti, he may ce as a matter of fact, thinking of jivanmukti. Anyway, it is beating i.a\ out the bush. This must be remembered that no one can emphasise that this is Vallabha’s opinion, nevertheless, i t is only a guessing. Further Vallabha points out that the sense-organs perfectly understand the thing, but the iiental organs sometimes confuse and one cannot grasp a thing properly. There are four faculties, which can be called as , - 5 mental organs viz. niscaya, samsaya, viparyasa and svapa. According t.o these mental organs one accum.ulates the kno'wledge. That is why, i f the knowledge is wrong, it is the defect of the miental organs, and not of the sense-organs. I f the sense-organs have neither beginning nor an end, then who dies? The atman has no death. I f everybody remains the samie, how does the world-cycle miove on? Moreover, in that case everybody v.dll be eternal. Why should then one try for the release, i f the body remains for ever? As Vallabha points out, at the time of destruction the sense-organs become in visib le and at the time of the creation they become perceptible. So the problem of the sense-organs remains as 5 - See K.T.M. 2 pp. 593* 153 it is. On the basis of that it will also be dangerous to say that Vallabha is advaitin. Vallabha thinks of the three types of the ji v a . Those v/ho have merged in the worldly enjoyments are pravaha.-jivas. Those who s tric tly observe the rules of the vedas are maryada.jivas and those who love the God, because of the God has obliged them are pustijiv a s . On the deeper level he again thinks of the three types of the jiva viz. susadhana - one who gets liberation on the basis of the /V ^ jnana, the karmans and the devotion and Nissadhana - one who gets emancipation without the help of these means. Dustasadhana - one gets release with some bad m.eans. According to Vallabha that is called as maryadam.ukti, which is gained by some means, on the other hand, that is pusti - - mukti which is accumulated without such means. While explaining the two types of the j i v a , Vallabha says that one is daivi or divine and the other is asura or demonial. The daivi jivas are always e lig ib le for the attainment of the liberation, v/hereas, the a suras are bound by the ties 6 of the worldly attachiments. Vallabha has never mentioned as to what happens to the asuras? Do they get liberation, or it is impossible for them for ever? If the liberation is beyond their capacity, again the same question can be 6. See ’ The Philosophy of Vallabhacarya’ , pp.26 154 put forth how then this world-cycle will move on ? The divine jiva 3 are again divided into two viz.maryada and pu sti■ Vallabha does not admit may a, notiAdthstanding, in his idea of tirobhava, maya appears. Not only this, but the real understanding is that the world is real, never- -thelessj the liberated and the intellectual people suppose i t as Brahmadharmin, while, the ffigryadbdharmins and the ignorant people think of the world as mayadharrnin. The problem is that when one thinks of such a gradation, the objectivity of the particular topic, disappears. The ultimate result is that the world appears as an effect of maya ana not as the real entity. It is like this that Vallabha tries to refute the maya, notwithstanding, through the other door, the maya enters. So to avoid the maya is rather difficult. The preference is given to the theocracy than to the philosophy in Vallabha's system. Another peculiarity of Vallabha’ s philosophy is that he regards Ehagavata as the fourth prasthana, not only this, but, in his bhasya he quotes the references from 7 the Bhagavata, as the most reliab le evidence. Really speaking 7. -- nrtJr) rpjr^ - - - I pp. 36 I rr- -L o t > the Upanisada, the Brahmasutras and the Bhgg;avadGita, these three are called as prasthariatrayi and it v.as a custom that one who w ill write a comraentary on these three should be called as the acarya. In the case of Vallebha he thinks of four prasthanac. Moreover, i t v:as not a convention before Vallabha. Though Ramanuja was a vaisnava simpraaayin, he did not believe in the Ehagavata as the fourth prasthana. It is also significant to note here that though Ramanuja or Vallabha viere bhaktisampradayins and they believed in the personal God, s t i l l , they were called as advaitins. Another queer thing is that in advaita also there are so many sects like kevaladvaita, suddha - - dvaita, visistadvaita and dvaitadvaita etc.