________________
476
The Philosophy of Vijñāna Bhikṣu
[CH.
Māyā and Pradhāna. Sankara, in his commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, I. 1. 4, discusses the meaning of the term aryakta and holds that it has no technical meaning but is merely a negation of vyakta or manifested form. He says that the word avyakta is compounded of the negative particle na and vyakta. He points out that since the term avyakta has thus a mere etymological meaning and signifies merely the unmanifested, it cannot be regarded as having a technical application to the Pradhāna of Samkhya. The avyakta according to Sankara thus means the subtle cause, but he does not think that there is an independent subtle cause of the world corresponding to the Pradhāna of the Samkhyal. He holds that this primal state of the existence of the universe is dependent upon God and is not an independent reality. Without the acceptance of such a subtle power abiding in God, God cannot be a creator. For without power God cannot move Himself towards creation; it is the seed power called avidyā which is denoted by the term avyakta. It is the great sleep of māyā (māyāmayi mahā-supti) depending upon God. In it all the jīvas lie without any self-awakening. The potency of the seed power is destroyed by knowledge in the case of emancipated beings and for that reason they are not born again? Vācaspati, in commenting on it in his Bhāmatī, says that there are different avidyās with reference to different selves. Whenever an individual attempts to gain wisdom, the avidyā associated with him is destroyed, though the avidyā associated with other individuals remains the same. Thus, even though one aridyā is destroyed, the other avidyās may remain in an operative condition and may produce the world. In the case of the Sāmkhyists, however, who admit one pradhāna, its destruction would mean the destruction of all. Vācaspati says further that if it is held that though the pradhāna remains the same yet the avidyā as non-distinction between puruşa and the buddhi is responsible for bondage, then there is no necessity of admitting the praksti at all. The existence and the non-existence of avidyā would explain the problem of bondage and emancipation.
1 yadi rayam sva-tantram kāñcit prāg-avasthām jagatah kāranatrenā! bhyupagacchema praşañjayema tada pradhāna-kurana-vādam. Vedānta-sutra, 1. 4. 3.
? muktānām ca punar an utpattih; kutah vidyayā tasyū vija-śakter dāhāt. Ibid.
