________________
28
of Sankara are well-known. In his criticism of Maya or Avidya, he seemes to be influenced by Jain philosopher-Vidyanandi of 9th century A.D. Some of his arguments are very similar to that of Vidyanandi.
Ramanuja's first objection is, what is the locus or seat of Maya or Avidya. It connot be Brahman, who is full of perfections. It cannot be the individual, who is the product of Avidya. It cannot exist in Brahman, for then the unqualified monsim of Brahman would be break down. Avidya means ignorance, it cannot reside in pure, self-luminous or consciousness i.e. Brahman. Hence Maya or Avidya cannot exist either in Brahman or in Jiva, it is illusory concept, a figment of Advaitins imagination.74 (Asrayanupapatti). Secondly according to Advaitins, Avidya conceals nature of Brahman. But it is not at all possible, because, Brahman is of the nature of self-luminosity, self proved and pure knowledge. Avidya, ignorance cannot veil or conceal its essence. Veiling the selfluminosity of Brahman consists in either obstruction of the production of manifestation of Brahman or the destruction of its existing manifestation. The mainfestation of Brahman is eternal, it is not produced. So concealment is not possible. It is absured to say that darkness can hide light or that night can acts as a veil on day. If veiling means destruction of existing manifestation, that would mean the destruction of very nature of Brahman. But it is not acceptable to any e. So Avidya is incapable of concealing the nature ol Brahman75 (Tirodhananupapatti). Thirdly, what is the nature of Avidya: Is it real or unreal, positive or negative ? If it is real, there would be duality the other reality being Brahman. If it is real, positive how can it be Avidya? Avidya means ignorance and it is absence of knowledge, If it is unreal, negative, then, how can it project this world-illusion on Brahman? To say that Avidya is both positive and negative is to embrace self-contradiction. So reality of Avidya cannot be proved76 (Svarup mupapatti). Fourthly, to say that Maya is neither real nor unreal but indescribable is illogical. How can a thing be neither real nor unreal? A thing must be either real or unreal. All our cognition relate to either entitites or nonentities. There is no third alternative. To maintain a third alternative is to reject the well established canons of logic-the Law of contradiction and the Law of excluded Middle77 (Anirvacaniyanupapatti). Fifthly, no means of knowledge (Pramaņas) testify to the existenance of Maya. Avidya cannot be perceived, for perception can give us either an entity or non-entity. It cannot be inferred, for inference proceeds through a valid mark (Linga) which Avidyä lacks. In the Scriptures, Maya or Avidya is used to indicate the wonderful power possessed by God, who has
