mayavadakhandana

MAYAVADA KHANDANA

By Bindu Madhavan on www.dvaita.org

Kandanatraya is a collection of three treatises, Mayavada Khandana, Upadhi Khandana and Prapanchamithyatvanumana Khandana, that critically review the Advaita concepts of Upadhi, Mithyatva etc.

In Mayavada Khandana, consisting of 20 granthas, Sri Madvacharya shows that the Mayavada, the identity of Jiva and Brahman, the central thesis of Advaita, is riddled with contradictions and that the Jiva Brahma Aikya is not the purport of the Sruti.

a. If Jiva Brahma Aikya is true and the resulting entity is different from Brahman, then we have dualism. This defeats the very concept of Advaita, since there are now two real entities, viz., the Brahman and the Jiva-Brahman unified entity to contend with.

b) If Jiva Brahman Aikya is true but the resulting entity is not different from Brahman, then the resulting entity is expected to have properties as that of Brahman. According to Advaita philosophy, Brahman is conceived as essentially self-revealing (svaprakasa) and is outside the pale of Pramanas (shastras). Hence, the Jiva Brahma Aikya must also be self-revealing and not come under the purview of Pramanas and Shastras, including the Advaita Vedanta! This means that no Shastras are needed to teach it as it is already known. Afterall, according to Advaita, Pramana is what makes the unknown known.

c) It cannot be stated that the Ajnana (ignorance) has veiled the Brahman resulting in not cognizing the Jiva Brahma Aikya and hence Sastras work as Pramanas to reveal this knowledge. But this arguement is contradicting the earlier statement that Brhaman is self revealing. Ajnana cannot veil the very Brahman as it is self revealing. Moreover, Ajnana cannot veil any charecteristics or features of Brahman, since, according to Advaita, Brahman is nirvisesa, ie , Brahman has no features or charecteristics.

d) Further, since Ajnana cannot veil Brahman, there is no subject matter for the Sastras to teach. According to Advaita, the Liberation is of the nature of the removal of Ajnana. As there is no Ajnana, there is no need of any removal of it. Thus there is no purpose to be served by the Sastras! As there is no Ajnana, there is no Adhikarin, ie eligible person to study the sastras. This means there is no Anubandhachatustaya viz., the subject, the object, the eligible person and the relevance of all these. Hence, Sri Madhvacharya says that the Advaita sastra is not worth pursuing.

e) If Jiva Brahma Aikya is Mithya, ie not true, then the Sastras that teaches this shall not be pramana. In this way, the untenability of the Advaitic doctrine of Jiva Brahma Aikkya is established. The purposelessness of Advata Sastra is also established.

Towards the close, Sri Madhvacharya refutes briefly the view of Sriharsa that cessation of Ignorance is indistinguishable from the Atman as well as that of Vimuktatman that it belongs entirely to a fifth order of predication.

Then, it is declared that Visnusarvottamtva is the purport of all Sastras. This is demonstrated by quoting the verses "Dvau Imau Purusau" etc from Bhagavadgita and "Indriyebhyah para hi arthah" etc from Kathopanisat.

The two aspects of the theme of this text are brought out in the Mangala verse of this text. The first line mentions the untenability of Advaita and the second line states the Visnusarvottamatva doctrine.

MAYAVADA KHANDANA

- Prof. K. T. Pandurangi

As the very title of this text suggests, this work points out that Mayavada i.e., Jivabrahmaikyavada is not the purport of the Sruti. If this is taken as the purport of the Sruti the study of the Sruti itself becomes a purposeless pursuit. It goes without saying that the Advaita Sastra is a purposeless pursuit as its objective and the subject cannot be convincingly and logically explained. These two points are presented in a syllogistic form as 'Vimatam anarambhaniyam' - 'anyathapratipadakatvatvat'. In this Syllogism Vimata i.e., the issue under the debate is to be taken as 'Vedadi Sastra' once, and as 'Advaita Sastra' once again. Anarambhaniya means not worth pursuing. The reaons given in the syllogism viz., 'anyathapratipadakatvat' means that 'it results in presenting something that is not true".

The points made in this syllogism are two :

i) Veda etc, sacred literature shall not be worth persuing if its purport is taken as Brahmatmaikya, since this results in their presenting something that is not true.

ii) Advaitasastra is not worth persuing as it states something that is not true.

These points are elaborated throughout this text. This may briefly be put as under :

1. If the so called Brahmatmaikya is true and different from Brahman, then, the very concept of Advaita will be deafeated. Because, now there are two real entities viz.,

i) Brahman ii) Brahmatmaikya.

2. If the so called Brahmatmaikya is true but not different from Brahman, then, Brahman being self revealing, the Aikya must also be self-revealing. This means that no Sastra is required to teach it as it is already known.

3. It cannot be stated that 'the Ajnana i.e., Niscience has veiled Brahman. This prevents Brahmatmaikyajnana. Therefore, there is the need of the Sastra to teach it.' Ajnana cannot veil the very Brahman as it is self revealing. It cannot veil any characteristic or feature or Brahman such as Atmaikya since Brahman is nirvisesha i.e., he has no feature or characteristic.

4. According to Advaita that which is already not known is Pramana. Since the Brahman is self-revealing and hence already known the Sastra that proposes to teach it is Apramana.

5. Further, since Ajnana cannot veil Brahman, there is no subject matter for the sastra to be taught. According to Advaita the liberation is of the nature of the removal of Ajnana. As there is no Ajnana, there is no need of any removal of it. Thus, there is no Prayojana i.e., the purpose to be served by the Sastra. As there is no Ajnana there is no Adhikarin i.e., eligible person to study the sastra. This means there is no Anubandhachatustaya viz., the subject, the objective, the eligible person and the relevance of all these. Hence the Advaita Sastra is not worth persuing.

6. In case Brahmatmaikya is Mithya i.e., not true, then, the Sastra that teachers shall not be pramana. In this way the untenability of Advaita i.e., Brahmatmaikya to be the subject matter of Vedadi Sastra is established. The purposelessness of Advaita-sastra is also established. Then, it is declared that Visnusarvottamatva is the purport of the Vedadi Sastra. This is demonstrated by quoting the verses 'Dvau Imau Purusau' etc, from Bhagavadgita and 'Indriyebhyah para hi arthah' etc from Kathopanisat.

The two aspects of the theme of this text are very well brought out in the Mangala verse of this text. The first line mentions the untenability of Advaita and the second line states the Visnusarvottamatva doctrine.