________________
is real or unreal. If it is real, then it destroys the non-dual nature of Brahman and leads to an inevitable dualism. If it is unreal, then, this world which is caused by māyā will not be possible. To say that māyā is unreal and still it creates this world is as absured as to say that a woman is barren and that she is a mother. 47 And the Vedantins themselves accept the theory that the real thing (the world) cannot be produced from unreal thing.48 Again, the very statement that māyā is indescribable. i.e., neither existent nor non-existent on account of being existent in the state of mundane life and no more at the state of realisation, indicates that it is describable in terms of either existent on the phenomeal level or non-existent in the state of liberation. 49 To say that māya is indescribable is self contradictory like saying that I am dumb throughout the life and my father is bachelor. 50
If we grant that māyā exists, then where does it exists ? Neither Brahmam nor jiva can be locus of māyā. It cannot exist in the supreme Brahman which is pure-consciousness by nature. If it exists in Brahman then Brahman cannot be called pure-consciousness on account of being associated with māyā. Even individual self is pure consciousness by nature and in essence, not different from Brahman and thus free from all taint of māyā. If māyā is an independent reality like Brahman and co-eval with it from the beginningless time, then it will be an impossible task to annihilate it by any means of liberation ard the consequence of this indestructibility of māya is an eternal bondage of the Soul.51 It is argued that māyā exists (bhāvarūpa) but it cannot be eternal like Brahman nor can it be an indepenpent entity. Though it is not capable of being determined by logic, still the denial of its existence would be contradiction of a felt fact and without adopting this doctrine of māyā it is not possible to solve the problem of relation between the Absolute and phenomena, individual self and the Brahman, and Real and the unreal.52 Here, again, one may argue why should such kind of illogical and irrational concept be accepted at all ? Instead of postulating this kind of unreal principle as the cause of the world, it is better to accept the view that the world is both different as well
se, 28, penisad with Goudapoderadamanjari, verse 13.
47 Anyayogavyavacchedika with Syadvadamanjari, verse 13. 48 Mandukyopanisad with Goudapadakarika and Sankarabhasya, Advaita prakarana,
verse, 28, pp. 164- 65. 49 (a) N.K., part I, p. 63.
(b) S.S.P., p. 8. 50 S.S.P., p. 8. 51 S.S.P., p. 9. 52 Suresvara, Sambaddhavartika, 175-181, pp. 55-57, ed. Kashinath Shastri, Agas
pub. Anandasrama Press, 1892.
JAINTHOLOGY, 141
