include("../sys/top.php"); ?> $title="Mayavadi Philosophy"; ?> $description="Refutation of Eka jiva vada"; ?> $keywords="eka jiva vada,ekajivavada,mayavadi,veda,vedas,vedic,knowledge,vedic knowledge,vedas and vedic knowledge,called vedas,in vedas,about vedas,vedic encyclopedia,online,encyclopedia,philosophy,bhakti-yoga,library,vedic library,reincarnation,yoga,hinduism,krishna,iskcon,astrology,tattvas,tattva,samsara,sastras,vaisnava,sanskrit"; ?>
Refutation of advaita’s eka jiva vada
Eka jiva vada (a theory of one jiva) is a prominent advaita theory. It was propounded by Adi Shankara and developed by Vimuktatman in his Istasiddhi where he says:
brahmaiva avidyayA ekam ced
badhyate mucyate dhiyA
eka muktau jagan mukteh
na mukta anya vyavasthitiH
"Brahman alone gets entangled in one avidya and is liberated through knowledge. When a single person gets liberated, the world itself is liberated. There is no other explanation of mukti and baddha."
Madhva's refutation in Vishnu tattva vinirnaya:
According to him this entire universe is a figment imagined by one embodied soul. This is unreasonable.
For the enlightenment of that one embodied soul, it should be decided whether he is a preceptor or a pupil and then establish the required pupil-preceptor relation. If X is that soul who is conscious of the fact that everything is his imaginary creation, then he, as a preceptor, will not engage himself in giving instructions to others treating them as his pupils. Because all others except himself are understood as unreal and no purpose will be served by giving them any instructions. Obviously, nobody worries about his duties towards persons seen in a dream, e.g. if one obtains a son in one’s dream one never tries for his upbringing and education.
Moreover, suppose somehow that one soul is discovered. While he cannot function as a preceptor to establish the required pupil-preceptor relation, he also cannot function as a pupil, because that would make him receive instruction from a preceptor who is none but the product of his own imagination and thus unfit to serve any useful purpose like imparting true knowledge.
What is the purpose of learning? It should elevate the pupil on the path of liberation. When we consider the pupil to be that one soul, what does happen when he gets learning? He becomes a preceptor. Is it an elevation or a fall? As it is believed that the preceptor is the illusory product imagined by the pupil, learned pupil when occupies the position of the preceptor will himself become reduced from reality to unreality. Thus the learning, instead of elevating him, will degrade him. None will dare to undertake such a downgrading learning!
(end of quote)
This theory is also sruti-smrti-virodha (against sruti and smrti):
two bird analogy (Rgveda samhita 1.164.20-22, Mundaka Up. 3.1.1-2, Svetasvatara Upanisad 4.6-7), Mundaka Up. 2.1.1 (sahasrasah), 2.1.4 (atma brahma tal laksyam), Katha Upanisad 2.2.13 (nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam), Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.12 (niskriyanam bahunam), Mahanarayana Upanisad 1.18, 1.70, 13.1.3, 79.17, Niralamba Upanisad 1 (jantunam), 5 (bahu jivah), Sita Upanisad 7 (sarva dehinam), Bg. 4.5 (bahuni me vyatitani janmani tava carjuna tany aham veda sarvani na tvam vettha parantapa), 4.6 (bhutanam isvara), 7.10 (bijam mam sarva-bhutanam), 15.7 (jiva-bhutah sanatanah), Vedanta-sutra 1.1.14-2.1.29, etc.
Bhagavata Purana 2.6.67 (catur vidha bhuta-nikayanam), 2.10.16 (sarva jantusu), 3.5.6 (bahudha), 3.5.49 (lokah), 3.6.11 (nirabhidyanta), 3.11.28, 3.28.41 (jiva-samjnitat atma tatha prthag drasta), 3.29.23 (bhutesu), 3.29.43 (svasatam), 4.7.43, 4.12.36 (jantusu), 37 (sarva bhuta), 4.20.30 (bhutebhyah), 4.29.1b (jivesu), 5.7.14 (caste hamsam grdhranam nrsad-ringiram), 6.14.3 (jantavah), 7.6.2 (sarva bhutanam priyah atma isvarah), 7.14.37 (jivena; Paramatma present with jivas in all bodies), 7.15.27 (purusa isvarah - Lord of living beings), 9.4.66, 10.2.39 (tvayy abhayasrayatmani), 10.87.30 (aparimitah dhruvah tanu-bhrtah), 11.11.5-6 (two birds), 11.12.3-6 (bahavah), 11.31.13 (asesah)
"Thus having manifest Himself within the body of a being, the Lord then made the jiva soul active and naturally the body and senses became conscious of their respective objects. The tiny jiva soul (individual soul) in bondage being puffed up by false ego acted himself as the Lord of the body, the Lord in the form of Paramatma (Supersoul, or witness) who is actually Lord of the body, saw the tiny soul bewildered thinking himself as being independent from the Lord. There are however some aware souls who on realization of the Supersoul exclaim that there is another who is superior, all pervading, Brahman. I see him now." (Aitareya Upanisad 1.3.13)
One of the advaitists supporting this theory is Madhusudana Sarasvati (16th century). In his Advaitasiddhisarasangraha 2.34 ('jIvANutva khaNdanam') he tries to refute jiva's anutva (atomic size) by claiming that atomic jiva couldn't feel pleasure of the whole body (iZvaravat ityAdi anumanaiZca jIva ananutva siddhe: vipakSe ca dehavyApi sukhajNAnAdi anupalambhApattiH bAdhikA).
This is however against sastra.
avinAZi tu tad viddhi
yena sarvam idaM tatam
na kaZcit kartum arhati
avinAZi—imperishable; tu—but; tat—that; viddhi—know it; yena—by whom; sarvam—all of the body; idam—this; tatam—pervaded; vinAZam—destruction; avyayasya—of the imperishable; asya—of it; na kaZcit—no one; kartum—to do; arhati—is able.
That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul. (BGAII 2.17)
ZrotraM cakSuH sparZanaM ca
rasanaM ghrANam eva ca
adhiSThAya manaZ cAyaM
Zrotram—ears; cakSuH—eyes; sparZanam—touch; ca—also; rasanam—tongue; ghrANam—smelling power; eva—also; ca—and; adhiSThAya—being situated in; manaH—mind; ca—also; ayam—he; viSayAn—sense objects; upasevate—enjoys.
"The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects." (BGAII 15.9)
eSo 'Nur AtmA cetasA veditavyo
yasmin prANaH paNcadhA saMviveZa
prANaiZ cittaM sarvam otaM prajAnAM
yasmin viZuddhe vibhavaty eSa AtmA
eSaH-he; aNuH-infinitesimal; AtmA-soul; cetasA-by the mind; veditavyaH-to be known; yasmin-in which; prANaH-breath; paNcadhA-in five ways; samviveZa-entered; prANaiZ-by breaths; cittam-the heart; sarvam-all; otam-the warp and woof; prajAnAm-of living entities; yasmin-in which; viZuddhe-pure; vibhavaty-is manifest; eSa-this; AtmA-soul.
"The soul is atomic in size and can be perceived by perfect intelligence. This atomic soul is floating in the five kinds of air (präëa, apäna, vyäna, samäna and udäna), is situated within the heart, and spreads its influence all over the body of the embodied living entities. When the soul is purified from the contamination of the five kinds of material air, its spiritual influence is exhibited." (Mundaka Upanisad 3.1.9)
By the logic of sampling one grain of rice to see if the whole pot is boiled Madhusudana's commentary fails.
Gaudiya acharyas Vishvanatha Chakravarti and Baladeva Vidyabhushana consulted his works when writing theirs. One of his analogies (a bird trying to dry up the ocean and getting help from Garuda) found its way into Baladeva's Gita Bhushana Tika to BG 6.24 quoted in BGAII.
Gerald Surya, Book Reviews: A Critique of A.C. Bhaktivedanta, ISKCON Communications Journal 7.2, 1999.
Mayavadi Philosophy: Analysis and Refutation
Questions about attitude toward impersonalism
dvaita vs. advaita (a long debate)