World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 320

against the teachings of the Upanisads. Then where does māyā reside? ACcording to Advaita, Brahman is the locus and content of māyā. Jus as an illusory snake cannot exist outside the rope which is empirically real, māyā cannot exist outside Brahman. It is also the case that the expressions "māyā' and 'avidyā" are used as synonyms by the Advaitins. Both these expressions signify the same principle of inexplicability. However, these two expressions are used contextually. When we talk about Brahman as the cause of the world, we mean Brahman associated with māyā, which is treated as cosmic illusion. Avidyā is basically associated with the individual self (jīva). In other words, māyā as a principle of inexplicability operates at cosmic level and avidyā at individual level.
Two kinds of Scripture
It is normally understood that the Upanisads contain two distinct streams of thought. The first stream is pertinent to strict monism, according to which Brahman is the only reality. The empirical world is illusory; and the individual self is non-different from Brahman.11 The other stream of thought describes Brahman as full of attributes and virtues; individual souls are real and many; and the world of name and form is real. These two streams of Upanisadic thought are called bheda and abheda texts. The following statements from the Upanisads bring the nature of the supreme reality.
He is Brahman; He is Indra: He is Prajāpati; he is all these Gods; and these five great elements...12
As Being alone was this in the beginning, one only, without a sec
ond. 13
Advaita considers abheda texts as primary and all other texts secondary. The other schools of Vedanta such as Viśistādvaita try to reconcile both these two streams of thought with the help of the Ghataka texts. The other distinction between the types of Scripture is based on action-oriented texts (karma-kāņda) and knowledge oriented texts (jñāna-kānda). The tradition of Pūrva-Mīmāmsā interprets the Veda in terms of ritual action. The other portion of the Veda, namely, the jñāna-kānda is represented by the Vedanta. According to the tradition of Advaita, the knowledge portion of the Veda alone is important for it is represented by the Upanisads. It accepts the fundamental schism between the two portions of the Veda and it openly declares that the texts containing the knowledge portion of the Veda are meant for different classes of individuals.14 On the contrary, the Viśistādvaitins maintain that the two Mimāmsās are basically one body of the Scripture (ekasāśtra). Therefore, they give equal importance to action and knowledge, for there is no internal classification of the Scripture in terms of authenticity. Accordingly, the Visistādvaitains view that there is no higher or lower Brahman and no higher or lower knowledge.
271