World of Philosophy

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

Page 816

Reality, Brahman with Sankara 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 Māyā is of very great antiquity and this concept has its roots in Rgveda and in major Upanisads. In fact, it is Māhāyāna Buddhism which has developed this concept taking idea 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 Shūnyavāda Buddhism, but of all Buddhists alike, and he left no stone unturned in criticizing them.,87 One more important thing to remember is that no Bubdhist thinker, while criticizing Advaita of Sankara has mentioned, that he owes to Buddhism for his doctnne of Māyā or Advaita. Even Santaraksita, 88 a great Māhāyāna thinker and critic of Advaita Vedānta does not mention Sankara's indebtedness to Buddhism. It is, therefore, very unfair to call Sankara as criptoBuddhist or to regard his philosophy as Māyāyāda. Other objections raised against the doctrine of Māyā by Bhāskara, 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 Māyā in the sense of something 'real' and demand a seat and Pramāna for it. However, there is no difficulty in accepting either Brahman or individual self as locus of Avidyā. If we accept first alternative, i.e. Brahman as the seat of Māyā, Avidyā being not real, the Advaita of Brahman is not destroyed, Brahman is not really affected by it. The rope is not really affected if it is mistaken as a snake. The Shell does not become silver if it is mistaken as that. Mirage water cannot make the sandy desert muddy. Māyā in Brahman is ignorance only in the sense of the power of producing ignorance and illusion in individuals; it does not affect the Brahman any more than the magician's power of creating an illusion affects his own knowledge. We may also agree with Mandana89 Miśra and Vācaspatio Misra that the individual self and Avidyā go on determining each other in a beginningless cycle. Avidyā comes from the Jiva and the Jīvas from Avidyā. It does not involve the logical flaw of Interdependence or Pititio-Principle because, this process is beginningless, as in the case of the seed and the sprout. So, no fault should be found with this
767