365bet娱乐

Sopadhika (conditional). The Advaitins contend that Sarvajnatva of Brahman is And whatever is Sopadhika is not Because, to gain Sarvajnatva, the knowabsolutely real. real. 398 A ledge of the whole world is necessary. When the world is caused by Mithyopadhi, the knowledge of that should also be caused by Mithopadhi. So the Sarvajnatva (an attribute of having the knowledge of Mithya-world) being Sopadhika and limited, it cannot become identical with the nature of Brahman which is Nirupadhika (unconditional unlimited). But Vadiraja argues that the world cannot be Mithya, or Sopadhika. It is not caused by any Upadhi. The world is

& 117 real, Its reality is conveyed by the Srutis. 399 So the Sarvajnatva is not Sopadhika. And both, the Sarvajnatva and the nature of Brahman could be stated as one and the 400 The Mithyatva of the Advaitins is self-imagined same. and superimposed. If there is any doubt regarding the reality of the world, then why not the same case regarding the unreality of the world. Thus, this view of mutual conteadiction about the reality of the world (personal views of different sects) will not affect and harm the Sarvajnatva of Brahman, which is conveyed and proved by the Srutis. 401 I 1 { Further, the identity of the world with Brahman cannot be stated on the basis of the identity of Brahman and 嗉嬥紞 Sopadhika Sarvainatva, since both Sarvalnatva and the world are Sopadhika. Moreover, their view is also unsound. Because, the knowledge of a pot is of Manorupa, but the pot itself is not of Manorupa. The pot is outside and mind is inside. 401 A In the same way, the knowledge of the whole world (Sarvajnatva) is of the nature of Brahman and not of the world. Further, the knowledge of the world (may be Mithya according to the Advaita) is real as the knowledge of the silver in the conch-shell and of the serpent in the rope is real, since it is cognized by the Saksin. In the same way, though the

world is held to be Mithya, the knowledge of that need not Therefore, there is nothing wrong in considering 402 be so. Sarvajnatva as identical with the Brahmasvarupa. If it is argued that on account of the Mithyatva of the world, the knowledge of that also is to be taken to mean Mithya, then why can't the object of real knowledge be considered as 'real. As the knowledge of Brahman is real, the objects (world etc.) of His knowledge, should also be treated as 'real. The knowledge of Brahman is real and Yathartha, so the objects related to that knowledge are also real. 403 404 1 Further, Vadiraja questions regarding the SopadhikaSarvajnatva itself. Is it mixed with the world caused by the Upadhi or is it only termed or indicated by the Upadhi? If it is admitted that the Sarvajnatva is mixed with the world caused by the Upadhi, then it is as good as saying that there is no Sarvajnatva, since the very Upadhi in the Advaita, is Mithya. Secondly, the Sarvajnatva cannot be termed as it is indicated by the Upadhi. As light of the sun, which is identical with the sun, in the same way, the knowledge present or abiding inside though having connected with the outside' world, is identical with that person. So the Sarvainatva of Brahman is identical with Brahman. Further, 1 118

if the knowledge related to the Mithya object is taken to mean Mithya, then the knowledge of Brahman too, is to be regarded as Mithya since having as its object, the Mithya world. Then it amounts to saying that Brahman too is Mithya. 405 According to the Advaita, the knowledge of Brahman has delusion. But in the Siddhanta, this defect is not there. Because, Lord Brahman has the knowledge of the real world. So. He is of the nature of real Jnana. Thus, the Sarvajnatva of Brahman becomes unsublated and this in turn suggests that all the Dharmas of the Lord are of His very nature. With the help of the Visesa Gunagunitva, Ekatva- 1 406 Therefore, 407 anekatva etc., are possible in the Brahman. like Sukha, all the qualities are identical with Him. i The Advaitins declare that the Brahman is of the nature They do not contend that the Brahman alone of Jnanananda. is there and not the Jnana and Ananda. So also there is nothing wrong in declaring that the Brahman is of the nature of unlimited qualities. And all these qualities are identical with the Brahman. There is no charm and reason to lessen and limit the number of qualities in the Brahman. So Gunata, Gunita, Sukhita and Sukhata are all possible in the Brahman. They are not contradictory. 407 A The SrutiVijnanamanandam Brahma states that the Lord is of the nature of Jnana and Ananda. And the sruti- Anandam brahmano 119

vidvan specifies that the Brahman is possessing Ananda. Thus, the first statement proves Sukhita in the Brahman and the second the Sukhata in Him. On the same ground, Gunata 408 and Gunita are also established. 1 J Thus, Vijnana, Ananda etc., convey the presence of innumerable qualities in the Brahman and not merely the Svarupa of Brahman. Though they 1 are identical with the Brahman, with the help of the concept of Visesa, they are liable also for Bhedavyavahara, 409 In this way, the Nirguna-Sruti will also not cause any harm to other Saguna-srutis, but negates only the vicious qualities- Prakrta qualities in Brahman.