________________
Direct Knowledge
385
with Brahman is done by the mabāvākya of the Upanişads. The constant meditation (prasankhyāna) on the preaching of the Upanişads leads one to the realization of that unity. The Vedānta also quotes the illustration of the beloved damsel, who appears distinctly before her lover's vision even though past or distant.
But, the appearance of damsel, as we have stated, in the case of Buddhists, is an illusion and, therefore, invalid. Does the realization also come in the same category ? The Vedantist replies that it is not invalid; because, all the scriptures testify to its validity. Moreover, the criterion of validity is the agreement (samvāda) with the object. This agreement is confirmed in the present case by the Vedic texts. In the case of the damsel there is no source of confirmation.
It may be mentioned here that the theory of agreement is not generally held by the Vedantists. Fundamentally, it is a Buddhist notion. Moreover, the instance of damsel does not fit in the present case. An illusory appearance cannot lead to the idea of real appearance in another case.
Vācaspati holds miod with the above meditation as the main source of realization.
The Vedantic scriptures, in general, do not take meditation into consideration. They are emphatic on the facts of the Upanişads and propose that scriptural authority is the only source of realization. This rules out the question of invalidity; as the Vedic scriptures, according to the Vedānta, hold supreme validity. Sankara is not prepared to assign any validity to reason where it goes against the Vedic text.
The above conception raises another difficulty which stood in the cas: of Buddhist also. The realization is held as perceptual knowledge. If it depends upon authority, it cannot be perceptual.
The Vedānta replies that there is no doubt about the perceptuality of realization. A perceptual illusion can be
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
