Sambodhi 1984 Vol 13 and 14

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, Ramesh S Betai, Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 10

Refutation of Advaita Vedanta in Major Jaina Works
object of proof must be different. Otherwise they can establislı nothing, In fact, scriptural statements such as "All that exists is Brabinau", "Everything is that one Reality", ctc., which Advaitins quote in their support, prove dualism between all existing things of the world and Brahman.40 Even scriptures cannot be regarded as the essence of the Absolute, because, essence and possessor of essence must be numerically different. 41 Another important thing is that, as far as these vcdantic texts are concerned, Advaitin's interpretations are not to be accepted as final word. This is because there are other possible interpretations which are in harmony with dualism or pluralism as interpreted in Viścșävaấyakabhāşya. 42
If Absolute Brahman is self-proved, then there is no harm in accepting duality or plurality or voidity as self-proved truth. Self intuition cannot be considered as proof for the existence of non-dual Brahman, because, there is again an inevitable dualism between the proof (i.e. self-intuition) and the object of proof (ie. Brahman). If self intution is identified with the Absolute, then it cannot be considered as a proof for the existence of Brahman.+ 3 It is self-contradictory to say that self-evident pure consciousness is the contradictor of our normal cognition of plurality, because, it means, again admission of cuality of the contradicted and the contradictor.44
Even on the religious ground, the doctrine of non-dual Brahman cannot be accepted, because it means denial of distinctions between good and bad deeds, pain and pleasure, this world and the world hereafter, knowledge and ignorance, bondage and liberation. Thus, if this doctrine is accepted then the consequence is destruction of the moral fabric of human life. 45
If it is said that, Brahman is the only Reality and on account of Maya or Avidya, this apparent world exists, then again it is impossible to prove, either the existence of Mâyn or Mithyatya (illusory nature) of the world by any means of valid knowledge. 4 o The fundamental objection against Advaitin's is, whether the doctrine of Masů (cosmic illusion) adopted to expluin this multiplicity of the phenomenal world is real or unreal. If it is real, tlien it destroyes the non-dual nature of Brahman and leads to an invitable dualism. If it is unreal, then, this world which is caused by Mayā will not be possible. To say that Māyā is unreal and still it creates this world is as absurd as to say that a woman is barren and that she is a mother. 7 And the vedantins themselves accept the theory that the real thing the world) cannot be produced from inreal thing.