Indian Philosophy

Author(s): Sukhlal Sanghavi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 88

80
The Upanişadic Thought-Current Regarding the Nature of Soul
Kevaladvaita is the doctrine upheld by Sankara. On his view, Brahman alone is an ultimate real and the difference pertaining to souls-like that pertaining to the world—he accounts for by positing a capacity for illusion, Hence according to this doctrine, a soul is not an independent and permanent element but a mere reflection of the ultimately real Brahman appearing there owing to its association with illusion, ignorance or an internal-organ; and when one comes to realize the identity of a soul with Brahman this reflection too ceases to be there. Since the doctrine of Kevaladvaita intends to posit the existence of a pure and impartite conscious element alone it has to account for the mutual difference obtaining among souls just as it has to account for the relation obtaining between the etement souls and the pure Brahman. Besides, with a view to explaining as to how rebirth takes place they have to explain as to how a soul transfers from one body to another. Now if just one ultimate real is posited at the root and acc sunt has to be offerd for so many types of differences then the only way out is to take recourse to the concept of illusion or ignorance. Hence it is that by taking recourse to the concept of illusion or ignorance has the doctrine of Kevaladvaita accounted for the entire secular and scriptural practice which presupposes so much of diversity. However, this accouting has been done not following some one single procedure. For what Sankara had finally to say on the quession is not available in is own words. Hence in this connection his disciples and commentators have resorted to do so many sorts of hypotheses wbich at times even seem to be just opposed to one another. In the following we quote several instances of the mutually divergent bypotheses adopted by the commentators of Sankara - on the basis of which one can well say that so much difference of opinlon as to the nature etc. of a soul is found there within the fold of the doctrine of Kevaladvaita is to be met within the case of no other Vedāntic thoughtcurrent. Here it too is necessary to keep in mind that with a view to vindicating his view or hypothesis each commentator has chiefly relied on scriptural texts.
A scholar named Gangadhara Sarasvati has written a verse-text entitled Vedāntasiddhāntasūktimañjari. On it is found a commentary Siddhantalesasangraha composed by Appaya Diksita. In this original text and its comm. entary there are compiled and elaborated all the different views as to soul adopted by the advocates of the doctrine of Kevaladvaita. From among them the chief ones are being taken up by us here.
(1) The Doctrine of Reflection : The masters like the author of Prakatārtha, the author of Samkṣepaśārıraka and the author of Vivarana describe in their respective manners a soul as a reflection of Brahman. One would submit that this reflection takes place in ignorance, another one that it takes place in an internal-organ, a third one that it takes place in