________________
Refutation of Advaita Vedanta in Major Jaina Works
by the Advaita Vedantins to prove the ultimate falsity of the phenomenal world and oneness of Brahman, itself proves the existence of the shell and the silver as two different entities. In the same way, the statement of Advaitins that Brahman is one without a second and the world is just appearance24 proves the duality of Brahman and the phenomenal world which is different from Brahman.25 It is also not tenable to argue that one unitory self-identical Brahman appears as the plurality of phenomena just as in dream a plurality of facts is experienced though it is one Consciousness that only exists and is felt and thus existence of one absolute Brahman is not contradicted by perceptual experience. This is because even in dream as in wakeful experience, the consciousness of action is different from that of the agent because dreamcontents are produced by different memory impressions. 26
The viewpoint that the indeterminate (nirvikalpa) cognition which cognises existence of Brahman cannot be accepted as source of our experience, because we never perceive what is not determined by space, time and what is not other than the knowing Self. On opening our eyes we perceive specific existence determined by space, time, otherness and the like. 27 Granting that indeterminate cognition is a kind of valid source of knowledge, it must be accepted that, it will not only take note of what Brahman is, but, will also take note of what Brahman is not and thus, it leads to dualism of Brahman and non-Brahman. 28 Even the argument that perception has no power to deny the Reality, it only affirms, is baseless because affirmation always implies negation, a thing cannot be affirmed to be yellow without denying that it is black. Thus, affirmation and negation which are presented together are the positive and negative. aspects of a single Reality. Our perceptual experience instead of proving one Brahman, proves difference to be as integral to Reality as identity. 29 If perception only affirms Reality i.e. Brahman, then why not to state that it affirms this plurality of phenomenal world also. If it affirms both, then there is a dualism of Brahman and the world. Thus argument of the Vedantins that perception only affirms positive Reality, is not justified by our experience If Brahman is only real and this world is false, then Brahman could have been known in the first case of our normal experience and not this pluralistic phenomenal world. 30
Even the Non-duality of Brahman cannot be proved on the basis of pure logic also. When Vedantins argue that Atman is un-born, up-bound and always freed and thus, in reality, there is neither bondage nor liberation, etc., this is purely fabrication of mind and to prove such kind of Armau by inference will be completely imaginary. The Consequence of
3
