________________
33
be get rid of. Prakāśānanda, an Advaitic thinker gives different picture. He states that Ajina or Avidyä cannot be established by any of the Pramnäs for the two are as opposed as darkness and light. Ajñana is vouched for by the witness so, it is superfluous to ask how it can be proved. It is argued by the Rāmānuja that, there is no remover of Avidya, because, kuowledge of attributeless and undifferentiated Brahman is not at all possible. But Śruti speaks of Nirguna Brahman.97 Nirguna Brahman is often spoken of as pure bliss. We cannot describe what Ananda is, but we can directly experience it, like sweetness of sugar. It is not a subject of logical demonstration but matter of experience. It is expressed by the words like 'Neti - Neti,'9 8 in Upanişads. Experience of this Nirguna Bralıman is a remover of Avidya. Again, Avidya is not 'real' but only a superiomposition, it vanishes when the ground relity is known. The rope - suake vanishes when the rope is known. It is only the direct knowledge, or intuitive knowledge of Reality wliich is the remover of Avidyā and hence, cause of liberation. It is also argued by the critics of Māyā or Avidya that ignorance (Avidya) means want of knowledge, and thus cannot to be positive. If it is positive, how can it be destroyed by the khowledge of Brahman ? Avidya is called positive only to emphasize the fact that it is not merely negative. The illusion producing ignorance is not merely an absence of the knowledge of the ground of illusion, but positively makes this ground appear as some other object. It is properly described as positive in this sense. In our daily experience of illusory objects, like the serpent in a rope, we find that the object positively appears to be there and yet it vanishes when we have a clear knowledge of the ground of the illusion, viz., the rope.99 When identity of Braluman and Arman (self) is realized, there is no Maya or Avirlyū, no bondage. Avidyā is removed by right knowledge.
Some modern crtics have condemned, Sankara's Māyāyāda as illusionisin. This misunderstanding is on account unwarrented and incorrect English rendering of the word Mäyd as 'illusion.' Mayū is falsc appearance. The false can never be equated with illusory or the non-existent. Something which is false must exist, its falsity consists in its appropriating to itself properties which do not really belong to it. What is called 'illusory', in the English language is called Prātibhāsika in Adyita Vedānta. Whenever Sankara says that the world is Māyā or Mithya, he does not mean it as entirely baseless illusory 'appearance. Sankara, never confused between subjective and objective existence. He did not regard the objective world as unreal for practical and moral purposes, and carefully distinguished it from dreams and other illusory appearances. The world has a Vyāvahärika
