________________
Drstiststivāda-an Analysis and Critical Appraisal
liberation, perception can not be denied. Therefore, Pakāśananda's view that creation is due to perception is not proper, because in the state of liberation, pei ception is always possible, but the dual creation has got no place at all Because in that state, it is all Bialunan and nothing else (Sarvam khalvidam Brahma) Chh. Up. 3 14 1)
B-As regards the views that creation is mere imaginatiou and that creation is nothing different from the self illumined knowlcdge, the two views have no place foi phenomenal reality of the world, which is very much a fact.
To me, it appeals that dual view (Dvaita desti) is the cause of manifold creation. It would amount that after the realization of Brahman the dual knowledge of world would be itself negated I From an advaitin it does not need any proof that in the state of Bra zmanjñāna, there is no scope for the dual existence for worldly object That state is purely the state of Biahman This interpretation seems to be different from the previously mentioned interpietation of Prakaśānanda, in the sense that according to the former, the existence of worldly objects depends upon perception, while according to the present interpretation, the world is the creation of dual view of the ignorant As earlier also stated peiception can not be said as the cause of dual creation, as Prakāśānanda says. Needless to say thai whateve the interpretative approach may be, in spirit, the above viewpoints are not against the Advaitic view. Hence there seems to be no scope to think otherwise as Das Gupta and other scholars do.
That Dưstisplivada is not an old concept and that it has never been admitted by Sankara2. Scholars like Das Gupta & others who find Drştisrstivāda in separate line from that of Sankara's, argue that the former does not admit the existence of the objective world, apart from its peiception and thus in his opinion, the wouldly things are real as far as perception is there, otherwise the world is nothing more than the ima gination and the dream, while Sankarācārya, the advaitin supporting the point of phenomenal reality, approves the existence of phenomenal world.
They further argue and advocate that Sankara has,refuted the philosophy of subjectivist, the Vijñāyavādin Bhuddhist and so how his line of philosophical thought can be similar to that of Drstisrstivādin Here
1. Inate dvaitam na vidyate, Gauctapäda-Kārkā, 1-18. 2. Das Gupta, Indian Philosophy.
