________________
Mäyāvüda are more or less similar to those of Bhaskaril. Vidyanandut und Rāmānuja.
In defence of Māyāvāda
Bliāskarācārya quoting a verse from Padmapurinu was ille first philosopher to apply the term Müyüvada to Sarkara's philosophy. Bhüskaricārya's terming Sarikara's philosophy as Müpüüda is unjustifiable, because, it is not Mūpå but Brahman with which sankara is concerned. Müva. the mysterious power of the supreme Lord is not the last word with Sankara. It is not the goal of human aspiration. It is something that descrves to be discarded and got rid of. Throughout Sarkara's writings, it is realization of the Brahman, and not of the Mayů that is really aimed. And whenever 'Miyū is brought in, it is not with a view to make his reader realize its importance or value, but in order to direct his mind towards the realization of his all important Brahman. "Brahman, with Sarikara, is the only true Reality, Brahman with Sarkara is the whole and sole ultimate ground and support of all, and Brahman with Sankara is the only worthy end of human life.”85 Again, Sankara's Māyāvāda is not hidden Buddhism as Bhāskara thinks. We have already pointed out that, the word May is of very great antiquity and this concept has its roots in Rgreda and in major Upanişads. In fact, it is Mālajāna Buddhism which has developed this concept takikg idca from Upanişadic philosophy. 86 No doubt, in respect of his method of discussing philosophical problems, Sankara, certainly influenced by Buddhist writers. But influence does not mean acceptance of their principles. Really speaking, he was a formidable opponent not only of Vijñānavāda and Sanyavāda Buddhism, but of all Buddhists alike. and he left no stone unturned in criticizing them., $ ? One more important thing to remember is that no Bubdhist thinker, while criticizing Advaita of Sarikara has mentioned, that he owes to Buddhism for liis doctrine of Mīyā or Advaita. Even Santara kşita, 8 8 a great Māhūräna thinker and critic of Advaita Vedanta does not mention Sankara's indebtedness to Buddhism. It is, therefore, very unfair to call Sarikara as cripto-Buddhist or to regard his philosophy as Māyāyādu. Other objections raised against the doctrine of Māyā by Bhasker, Vidyānandi, Rāmānuja and others are more or less similar. In reply to all those objections, one thing can be clearly said that, all of them are based on misunderstanding of the doctrine of Māyā. All these philosophers, it seems, took Miyū in the sense of something real' and demand a seat and Pramüra for it. However, there is no difficulty in aceepting either Brannan or individual self as locus of Avidyö. If we accept first alternative, i.e. Brahman as the seat of Maya, Aridya bcing not real,
