Indian Philosophy

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

Page 90

82
The Upanişadic Thought-Current Regarding the Nature of Soul
soul on the one hand and a manifest worldly multiplicity on the other. The non-manifest capacity for consciousness assumes the form of a manl. fest soul and undertakes activity--all this happens on account of Nārāyana, the Supreme Brahman. Within the body of both the gross and subtle conscious as well as non-conscious elements the Supreme Brahman remains ever permeated,
Being a believer in the reality of an inherent difference-cum-nondifference Nimbārka is reported as an advocate of the doctrine called Dvaitā. dvaita (=doctrine of dualism-cum-nondualism). Thus on his view even if the Supreme Brahaman is possessed of an undifferentiated form it is transformed in the form of an infinte number of souls. Just as the same wind Is transformed into different forms depending on a difference of place, similarly Brahman too is transformed in the form of a multiplicity of souls. These souls are not of the form of something imaginary or imputed.
Viiñanabhiksu is of the view that just like praksti the puruşas or souls too are something beginningless and independent and yet they are incapable of existing apart from Brahman. Thus the souls exist in Brahaman in an unseparated (=avibhakta) form and are guided in their activity by a power Inherent in it. So this is the doctrine called Avibhāgādvajta (=doctrine of nondualism-in-the-form-of-nonseparateness).
Vallabha is of the view that souls constitute a real transformation of Brahman as does the world. Such transformation take their rise owing to a playful-activity (=lila) on the part of Brahman and yet Brahman itself remains unchanged and pure. So this is the doctrine called Suddhadyaitavāda (doctrine of pure nondualism).
Caitanya too is of the view that owing to its capacity in-respect-ofsouls Brahman appears in the form of an infinite number of souls. There obtains between these souls and Brahman a relation of differenc-cum-nondifference, but this relation is something incomprehensible(=aclntya). So this is the doctrine called Acintya-bhedābhedavāda(=doctrine of an in incompr. ebepsible difference-cum-pondifference).
All the doctrines from that advocated by Bhāskara down to that adve · ocated by Caitanya view a soul as atoimic-sized and according to them
all it attains emancipation when its ignorance vanishes as a rusult of knowledge, devotion etc. While in the state of emancipation it, in some form or other, experiences proximity with Brahman. Besides, all these masters account for rebirth by positing a subtle body.
Madhva. while remaining a Vedāntist, does not at all take recourse to any form of non-dualism or non-difference. Thus basing himself on