74 Chapter III The Philosophy of Advaita as expounded by Sarvajnatman Backgroiind: Thoiigh the Advaita Philosophy was first visualised and preached by the seers of the Upanifads, by the Lord Himself in his Bhagavad-Glta, by Vyasa, the great redactor of the Brahmasutras and by the renowned expositors like Gaudapada> still, it was brought home clearly to all the world, on the basis of a systematic interpretation of all these Scriptures by ^ri ^ankaracarya; and therefore the prcxnulgation and consolidation of this philosophy came to be mainly associated with the name of ^rl Sankaricarya, who was thus given the honour of being the founder of that system. He established the doctrine firmly by refuting all the extant systems of philosophy with his versatile and subtle genius. Within the short span of thirty-two years of his life, it was not possible for him to deal with the various bones of contention in their entirety e.g. the substratum of Avidya, the nature of the Individual Soul and its relation with Brahman etc. It might be said that he did not consider all this minute discussion as quite necessary for the establishment of his doctrine. But his later successors in the field differed in their view-point and tried to develop the system by elaborating some untouched problems in their great treatises which dealt with all the salient features of the system. Sarvajnatman was one of such expositors. He composed his Sanksepa-sariraka - a manual of Vedanta, in order to remove the obstacles in the acquirement a of the fruit of the knowledge. Nature of the Highest Reality: The Advaita philosophy of damkaracarya conceives the Pure Brahman as the only Reality, vrtiich is understood from the Upanigads as being of the nature of Being, Bliss, Consciousness etc., which can be attained by the true understanding of the Scriptures alone and which is the basis of the superimposition of the phenomenal paraphernalia of the impure nescience. Sarvajnatmamuni, following the footsteps of his revered preceptors, points out at the very outset that the highest Reality is the only sentinent, infinite and read entity, which is free from all the defects of the world, viz. falsehood, inertia, misery, impurity, bondage etc. which is devoid of all delusions, whose greatness is stigmatised by the various unreal distinctions as to the world, God, the Individual Soul etc., which is cognisable by Intuition alone, which is really of the nature of Being, Bliss and Consciousness. He declares that the Bliss of Brahman is directly experienced in the state of deep sleep, for, the Bliss that is enjoyed at that time cannot be due to the knov/ledge of the objects as the state is devoid of all knowledge . He further establishes this ’Bliss’ of Brahman with the help of inference d. as he says in 1.57. See also 1.10 7G 9 and also the Scriptures. Brahman is also described as eternal (permanent), pure, self-luminous, free from all bondages, true, subtle, existent, omnipresent, the one unity which is the 10 reservoir of all happiness, the highest Knowledge, which is identical with unsurpassed Bliss. The same Brahman is identified with the highest Pada of Vi?iju, (gTTT: the goal of all endeavour. The Definition of Brahman: Brahman, which is described above as the One highest Pure Reality is regarded by Sarvajnatman to be the material cause of the world, which is laid down by the second aphorism of the Brahmasutras viz. - Janmadyasya yatah - as being responsible for the production, preservation and the destruc­ tion of the world. He points out that one sentient cause should be admitted behind all this distinct paraphernalia, because the Scripture itself declares this idea firmly by using the singular number in the ablative case (yatah) with regard to the cause of the world. 12 This characteristic mark 9. 11.22 10. I 1 . 173 11 . q w f i T «fTPfewT rniTTFT i gc=aw^»?rc»t>Hq ^ ^HS||Ld<^; il X See also III.291 which says that "f^fSPhr; 12. The topic is discussed from 1.496 onwards 7 7 of the causality of the world in the case of the highest Brahman, should be regarded as a subsidiary characteristic mark (upalak§ana), because otherwise it would contradict the power of the principal word in the sentence viz. Brahman. He further points out that the characteristic marks are really prescribed to state that the particular thing to be denoted is quite different from the other things of its class. The Scripture does not lay down this characteristic mark of being the producer of the TJniverse^in the case of Brahman,either - (i) to accomplish the relationship of the denoter and the thing to be denoted or (ii) to describe the real natural form of the highest Reality . But it is laid down here in order to account for the difference of Brahman from all other things that are not Brahman. In the various systems of philosophy that attribute causality to such entities as Time, Nature, Atoms, the Individual Soul, the Pradhana, the Principles, the Knowledge or the Void, limited­ ness is to be pocketed everywhere. This second sutra is laid down to deny such limitedness in case of the highest Cause. A real upalakgana is described as that characteristic mark, which is not responsible for the production of the idea of the special characteristic with regard to the thing to be denoted and which, even though is not a natural description of that thing, still becomes ultimately the true describer of the thing. Therefore, this '^-*1 fVnIcfc^ should be really treated as an upalaksana - a subsidiary characteristic. This upalak§ana should be regarded as merely a sign. It is not to be 7S looked upon as an inference or a means to know Brahman. The Vedanta-sentence itself with the help of the power of the words in it, is inclined to establish the highest Reality, whose form is Existence, Consciousness and Bliss and which is the cause of the production, preservation and dissolution of the universe, in a particular manner. No other proof like inference etc. can establish this fact in that manner. Though causality in the real sense of the term, which is imagined in the case of the highest Reality is itself a contradiction, because, it is generally seen in the case of the insentient things, still, it can be pointed out that causality is discernible in the sentient beings as e.g. the causality of the individual Soul in the production of the varied substances of the dream etc. Therefore ultimately this very characteristic mark should be regarded as a mere sign only in the case of Brahman. The Scripture is self-proved and the various infer­ ences which are based on the argument of the cause-effect relation, are eternally subservient to the Scriptural declara­ tion. For the fear of the disturbance to the real nature of Brahman, of infiniteness and etemality, this is regarded as a cTHTWcSfT. Thus Sarvajnitman regards the Pure Brahman only as the material cause of the world. The first aphorism - athato Brahmajijnasa enunciates the desire of knowing that Brahman from which the creation, preservation and dissolution of the 7 l i world proceed. This definition therefore applies to that Brahman, which is put forth in the first Sutra as an object of enquiry. He does not admit like Vacaspati that the avidyopadhika Brahman is prescribed in the first Sutra. The author lays much stress upon the sole causality of Brahman. But the unchanging Brahman cannot be an independent cause, Maya is therefore supposed to be an intermediate cause - an instrument - a dvarakaraija - through which the one Brahman appears as many. That which is not the cause but is simply a conveying factor of the chief cause is found often to inhere in the effect. This is said to be the interaediate cause which acts between the actual cause and the real effect. The view of Sarvajnatman is concerned only with emphasizing the reality of Brahman as the only truth and does not give miya or avidya the same degree of co-operation in the production of the world. Maya is also frequently designated as the cause of the world in the Advaita Vedanta.The author of the Siddhanta Muktavali admits Maya only as the material cause of the world and remarks that the usage that Brahman is the cause of the world, is secondary as Brahman is the substratum of Maya, which is the real cause of the world. The author of the Padarthatattvanirnaya assumes that both Brahman and Maya are the material cause of the world - Miyi being the parinamakaraija 13» Different opinions in this connection are noted in the “ / * Siddhantalesasamgraha pp.4^-6$. 8 0 and Brahman being the Vivartakarana. According to Vacaspati, even the itmautable and the attributeless Brahman is the material cause of the appearance of the world i.e. ’Vivartamanataya upadinam*, Maya being only the assistant in as much as it obstructs the real knowledge of Brahman. Sarvajnatman followed the footsteps of his preceptor - Suresvaracarya in admitting the Pure Brahman as the real ground cause and ajnana only as the instrument through which It becomes the cause of all appearances. According to him, Brahman can be understood only by the testimony of the Scriptures and the Upanisads declare the highest Brahman only as the real cause of the world. The view of Sarvajnatman is represented by Appayya Dikfita in his Siddhantalesasamgraha as follows: m wcm^qirMrirr|TTr ^ 3firwiicFrftr An interesting view as regards the interpretation of Sarvajnitman*s view on this point is given further in the Siddhantalesasamgraha.^^ It is pointed out there that frmFTwrPignf ^ 1-^rqrc;i hh,! ^ gw^zrnrn^ f^r^': i 81 Sarwajnitman does not object to the theory that the Qualified Brahman is the material cause of the creation, that the author wants to say that Brahman accompanied by Maya is not the material cause, but Brahman, which is free from nescience and yet rules over it, is the cause.