CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION Ved nta is the most important among the Indian philosophies. Two major schools of Ved nt are Dvait and Advaita. Among them the one is theistic and the other is philosophical. 1 Advaita recognizes only Brahman is real and considers everything else is mithy. Dvaita states the universe and the individual souls are real. So these oppose each other. Not only Dvaita but also the other schools do not accept the unreality of the world. The concept of mithy tva is so important because the non-duality of reality cannot be established, if the world cannot be shown as mithy. If it is accepted that Brahman is only real what is the position of jagat and personal life? This is the vexed problem of the one and many. A solution offered to this problem the Advaita system maintaining the theory of jaganmithy tva. Brahman shows the universe and personal life with the help of m y akti. M y has two qualities kriy tmak and niàedh tmaka. M y vanishes the original object through its niàedh tmaka akti and its kriy tmaka akti, it shows another in the same locus. M y is the akti which covers the Brahman and fixes the prapaµca and personal life there. 6.1. The development of two schools 1. V. Sisupalapanicker, Dvaita Advaita polemics, Swantham books. T.V.M., p. 41. 196
Brahmas tra is the systematic representation of the upaniàadic teachings. áa kara represents Brahmas tra in his own way. He shows consistency of the upaniàadic texts. It can be maintained on the admission of the sole reality of consciousness and falsity of the world. The commentators of áa karabh Àya are all great scholars. In their annotations the implications of áa kara are fully manifested. Among the interpretations of áa karabh Àya Paµcap dika of Padmap da is very important. Padmap da was the direct disciple of áa kara. The orthodox áa karites believe that the import of áa karabh Àya has been represented in its true perspective in Paµcap dika. 2 Prak tmayati wrote an interpretation in Paµcap dik and it is known as Paµcap dik vivara a. In the fourteenth and fifteenth century some commentaries were developed based on the Vivara a. Prak tmayati established a new school of Advaita Ved nta which is known as Vivara a School. This Vivara a School is considered as being one of the most representative schools of áa kara Ved nta. Bh mat is also an important commentary of Brahmas tra. This Bh mat is written by V caspatimi ra. The Bh mat School of Advaita Ved nta 2. Nirod Baran Chakraborthy, The Advaita Concept of Falsity-A Critical Study, Sanskrit college, Calcutta, 1967, p. 41. 197
originates out of Bh mat. It plays an important role in the development of áa kara Ved nta. 6.2. M y the synonym of mithy The word m y is used in the Îgveda. But the m y of áa kara is different from Îgvedic m y. Brahman has ultimate reality and the world is m y or mithy. It is believed that m y presupposes to mithy. 3 M y is frequently used by the pre- áa kara Advaitins. It is used in Vedas and upaniàads. But the technical meaning of m y that áa kara used is different from this upaniàadic and vedic m y. The modern philosophers used m y to mean only illusion. The ávet vataropaniàad text states that m y is the universe. 4 Mithy is also used to show the universe. It is necessary to understand m y because it is being understood by the principle which shows the niàprapaµca Brahman as saprapaµca. 5 áa kara stated vy vah rika mithy tva, p ram rthikasatyatva and jagadup d nak ra atva through m y. The worldly objects which cannot be described as sat and asat, so it is considered as anirvacan ya. Mithy is also anirvacan ya. That is sadasadanirvacan yatvam mithy tvam. The objects of m y are neither something nor nothing and 3. Balasubrahmanian, Advaita Ved nta- History culture and civilization, p. 353. 4. M y tu prak tim vidy t m yinam tu mahe varam. S.U., 4.10. 5. Encyclopedia of upaniàads, Vol. I, p. 16. 198
therefore termed mithy. 6 Some philosophers used m y instead of mithy. They described the five definitions of m y. The five definitions of mithy are the five definitions of m y. 7 From these it can be understood that m y and mithy are can be equated. 6.3. Mithy in other schools The other philosophers did not accept the unreality of the world. They accept the world is real. The term mithy is accepted by all Indian philosophers. But the technical term especially in the context of prapaµcamithy tva is a source of difference between Advaitins and non Advaitins. The Yoga philosophy states that Viparyayo mithy jµ nam atadr papratià ham. 8 Yogabh Àya makes a very subtle distinction between avidy and viparyaya. Avidy is the potency by which false conception originates. Avidy viparyayajµ nav sanetyartaå. 9 Vy sa also said viparyaya is the cause of worldly existence. Ì varak À a pointed out that bondage is brought out by viparyaya. Ny ya Vai eàika classifies ayath rth nubh va in two types sam aya 6. Hiriyanna. M., Outlines of Indian philosophy, Bombay, 1973, p. 365. 7. Dr. Visvamber Dvivedi, Advaita Ved nt evam K Àm r áaiva Advaitav da, Satyam publishing House, New Delhi. 8. Y.S., 1.8. 9. Y.S.B., 24. 199
and viparyaya. Viparyaya is simply mistaking one thing for another. The p rvam m msakas used the term bhrama for mithy. Advaitin s mithy on other hand is completely different. Here the word mithy tva is used in a highly technical sense. They advocate that the universe is mithy. The universe exists in the sense that it is apparently real but is ontologically mithy. 6.4. The controversy between Dvaitins and Advaitins The Dvaita-Advaita controversy is a very interesting, and simple description in the history of Indian philosophies. In Indian philosophy more philosophers questioned the mithy concept of Advaitins. They did not accept the unreality of the world. Brahma satyam jaganmithy is the basis of this controversy. So the post Madhus dana Advaitins try to develop the mithy concept and clear definition of mithy is given. The author of Ny y m ta gave twelve definitions of mithy tva and said that these are not suited for this. As the reply of this, Madhus dana gave a clear picture of mithy concept using the five important definitions. This is in order to present a true picture of the Dvaita Advaita controversy. Ny y m ta of Vy sat rtha and Advaitasiddhi of Madhus dana are the basic texts. The Dvaita and Advaita are idealistic in character. They agree that the ignorance is the cause of bondage. The ultimate reality of Brahman, the 200
authority of Vedas is the certain points of their common interest. 10 The basic stand points of Advaitins can be summed up as follows: The whole world is nothing but Brahman, nothing exists different from it. If anything shines other than Brahman, it is false like mirage. The basic standpoint of Dvaitins is as follows: The world possesses the same reality as that of Brahman. That means Brahman and the world is absolutely real. 11 So naturally the reality and the unreality of the world became the subject of controversy. According to Advaitin the world is mithy. They clearly presented the definition of mithy tva by proving the unreality of the world. The post-áa kara Advaita philosophy originated from the different commentaries of Brahmas tra. The post-áa kara Advaitins state the unreality of the world. Like the opinion of áa kara they also said that the world is mithy. The unreality if the world is called mithy. Brahmasatyam jaganmithy is the essence of the philosophy of áa kara. Ekamev dvit yam, Neha n n sti kiµcana, Yato v im ni bh t ni j yante etc. are teaches the non-dualism. The second neha n n sti kiµcana teaches the unreality of pluralism. The third 10. V. Sisupalapanicker, Dvaita Advaita polemics, Swantham books, T.V.M, p.109. 11. Ibid, p. 110. 201
yato v im ni bh t ni j yante teaches the absolute is the material cause of the universe. 12 6.5. The five definitions of mithy tva Vy sat rtha the author of Ny y m ta gave twelve definitions of mithy tva and also stated that it is not suitable for the definition mithy tva. Among these twelve definitions some are included in these important five definitions. Atyant satva does not accept the definition of mithy tva because mithy is not atyant satva. According to Advaitins atyant satva is a½ ka. Atyant satva is not perceived as it is. Here mithy object i.e. the world is presented in front of us. The second anirvacan yatvam is included in the definition of Padmap da. Mithy abdo anirvan yat vacanaå. 13 Sadviviktatvam is the definition given by Ënandabodha in his Ny yamakaranda. Sadasatv nadhikara atvam is included in the definition of Padmap da. Jµ nanivartyatvam mithy vam is the definition of Prak tman. Svasam n dhikara a atyant bhava pratiyogitvam is included in the first definition of Prak tman. These definitions directly include the important five definitions. So the objections raised by Vy sat rtha are not valid. 12. Nirod Baran Chakraborthy, The Advaita concept of Falsity-Acritical Study, Sanskrit college, Culcutta, 1967, p. 36. 13. Padmap da, Paµcap dika, Madras, 1958, p. 23. 202
The prominent Advaitins defined mithy in different ways. There are five different definitions in Advaita literature. These are alternative descriptions of mithy tva self-dependent and equally valid. They have no superiority or inferiority among them. Paµcap dika defines mithy as not being the locus of either real or unreal. This means the false is different from sat and asat. In this definition Madhus dana clearly stated the sat, asat and the anirvacan ya of the world. Prak tman defines false into two ways. The first the falsity eternally negated in the same locus where it is cognized. The second is the falsity that which is contradicted by knowledge. Citsukha considers the mithy as the locus of which is- equally the locus of its eternal negation. Ënandabodha describes falsity as other than reality. The different definitions of mithy tva mean the same thing. That means the falsity presented is later on contradicted. Through these definitions Advaitins state that all the objects of the world can be known as existent. They are superimposed on Brahman. The third definition of mithy tva is- the mithy is that which is contradicted by knowledge. Memory is not the direct and immediate cognition. The preceding knowledge which is negated by the succeeding knowledge cannot be false as it is not cancelled by knowledge 203
characterized by immediacy. The fourth definition of mithy is that the locus which is equally the locus of its eternal negation. 6.6. Observations By the study of these definitions it can be understood that m y and mithy are same. Ma ana also states that m y and mithy are same. áa kara sowed a seed that is mithy. The post-áa kara Advaitins protected and supported the seed, for its growth as a good tree. This was the development of the mithy concept among the philosophers, pre-madhus dana Advaitins gradually developed the concept of mithy tva because in that age this concept had more been questioned. Mithy tva remains the only concept that had invoked more definitions than all others. After the development of the first definition, the later Advaitins did not simply modify the said definition, but they gave the other definitions of their own. Including the whole processes of finding out the true principle from the appeared ones, the great c ryas of Advaita used various terms and included deeper implications in their different definitions of the concept of mithy tva. Madhus dana did not simply agree and accept these five definitions. He did not say which is the most important among these. But it can be seen that the commonly used definition is the first one. He minutely analyses each definitions of the prior c ryas. 204
Through these five definitions it can be understood that the major Advaitins see this concept in different ways. But they reached the common point i.e., mithy, the unreality of the world. D yatva is found to be the common factor in both the reality and the falsity of the world. Both of them are sublated by the cognition of Brahman, so they are negated by the same cognition and those which are negated by the same knowledge are of the same order of existence. The world and its falsity are of the same order of reality as both of them are negated by the knowledge of Brahman. So it is clear that the world, its reality and also its falsity are negated through the realization of Brahman. Advaitins accept three kinds of reality. The absolute reality (p ram rthikasatt ), relative reality (Vy vah rikasatt ) and phenomenal reality (pr tibh sikasatt ). The absolute reality is Brahman. The relative reality is the world. The phenomenal reality is uktirajata. M y or mithy has a pivotal role in Advaita Ved nta. It is as important as Brahman because the reality of Brahman is stated or established only through the Dvaitamithy tva. The world is mithya from the p ram rtika stand point and the world has vy vah rika satyatva. The pratibh Àika satta is sublated by the vy vah rika satta, this vy vah rika satta in turn further is sublated by the p ram rtika layer of satta. 205
Thus is the three tier system of Advaita philosophy. In establish the concept of mithy tva of jagat in Advaita the role of Advaitasiddhi of Madhus dana Saraswathy the climax of v daprasth na cannot be over emphasized. 206