Advaita-vedanta cosmogony

Avidya, which manifests itself as the varied world, is timeless (kalatita) in the sense that it creates the notion of time and thus is superior to time. This view encompasses dik or directions in the concept of space, (akafa) and the concept of time (kala) in primordial avidya, which contains all in its fold. Thus, acceptance of time as a distinct category is superfluous. Although time and the directions are included in this ontology, unlike the Naiyayikas, they are not placed on a similar footing. Time is one of the primal causal factors from which everything, including space and quarter, is produced. Space, however, is considered as the starting point of all other phenomenal appearances. Time, as explained by Purusottama, the commentator of Madhusudana, ⁴⁹⁴ is conceived as consciousness conditioned by avidya, which is thus identical to Ifvara. Therefore, time is the first creation of avidya. It is interesting to note that in the Pañ caratra theology time is equated with Aniruddha who creates the empirical world.⁴⁹⁵ It is the first admixture of real and unreal, providing the impetus for creation. Its conscious portion is real but its avidya portion is unreal. Hence kala is also a phenomenal appearance (anirvacaniya). Apart from jiva, Ifvara and ajñ ana, all objects come within the fold of time and so are manifested as related to time. That is, the pragmatic world exists as long as time exists.

The drfya – the universe viewed apart from the percipient jiva – is the world of names and forms. The author of Digdrfyaviveka distinguishes clearly between the perceiver and the perceived (drk and drfya) in that while drk possesses existence, revelation and bliss, drfya is characterised by names and forms only (nama and rupa). Drfya is divided into three groups: unmanifest (avyakrta), subtle (amurta) and gross (murta). Avyakrta is the primordial avidya, which is the root cause of both the subtle and gross universe. It is co-existent with Ifvara, the relationship between avidya and consciousness, the difference between jiva and Ifvara, and the jiva. They are all unmanifest and beginningless on a similar basis. As avidya exists they also exist, but when avidya is removed they too cease to exist. Avidya, being inert, cannot by itself evolve into the universe. The potential influence of the consciousness and the existence of jiva’s karma make ajñ ana create the universe. It is Ifvara, Himself, who supplies potentiality to avidya.⁴⁹⁶ In this way, Madhusudana accepts Ifvara as the creator. The inert, primordial avidya, having been associated with the reflection of caitanya, proceeds to produce the universe.

Primordial avidya consists of three constituents called gujas: sattva, rajas and tamas. The five cosmic subtle elements that directly emerge from avidya possess the nature of all three gujas. These five elements, having the predominance of sattva, produce in combination a category that is extremely transparent and pure. This category has two aspects, showing the power of knowledge or intelligence and the power of action, respectively.⁴⁹⁷

The scriptures state that the maya-fakti of Brahman has three powers: knowledge (jñ ana), volition (bala) and action (kriya).⁴⁹⁸ However, Madhusudana accepts only two of these, as bala and kriya may be merged into one kriya-fakti. When jñ ana-fakti predominates, the category is known as antahkaraja, whereas when kriya-fakti predominates the category is called praja. Antahkaraja, having two different aspects, is further divided into manas and buddhi. Praja consists of five elements – praja, apana, vyana, udana and samana.⁴⁹⁹ Dharmarajadhavarindra states that antahkaraja has four modes (vrttis): doubt, saÅ faya; determination, nifcaya; pride, garva; and recollection, smaraja. According to these vrttis, antahkaraja has four aspects known as mind, manas; intelligence, buddhi; ego, ahaÅ kara; and, thought, citta, respectively. They are not different from antahkaraja but have acquired different designations only because each of them shows a distinct state of antahkaraja.⁵⁰⁰ Furthermore, while describing the genesis of the universe, Dharmarajadhvarindra enunciates that the five subtle elements, characterised by their sattvaguja, collectively produce manas, buddhi, ahaÅ kara and citta. That means these four aspects of mind collectively are taken as equivalent to antahkarana (obviously consisting of jñ ana-fakti). Vidyarajya Muni⁵⁰¹ states that ahaÅ kara is the embodiment of jñ ana-fakti and kriya-fakti.

He further identifies it with antahkaraja, which ascribes transient life, saÅ sara to jiva.⁵⁰²

Ahamartha or ahaÇ kara

The notion of ahaÅ kara or ego has differed to a considerable extent at the hands of the philosophers of the Advaita-vedanta school. Dharamarajadhvarindra describes ahaÅ kara as a special mode of antahkaraja, where the element of garva (ego) predominates. In this sense, ahaÅ kara is merely an aspect of

antahkaraja, as are manas, buddhi and citta.⁵⁰³

Vidyarajya Muni, in his discussion of the concept of ahaÅ kara, reiterates two different views. He begins his discussion of ahaÅ kara by stating that it is the creation of avidya with the addition of both jñ anafkati and kriyafakti.⁵⁰⁴ He further identifies it with antahkaraja. However, in the course of further elucidation of the concept of ahaÅ kara, Vidyarajyta Muni takes it to mean the Upanisadic hrdaya granthi, ⁵⁰⁵ which he explains as the combination of cit (consciousness) and jada (insensate). By cit, he means the self, which is the locus, and by jada he means antahkaraja. However, when looking at the notion of ahaÅ kara, Vidyarajya seems to vacillate between antahkarana and hrdaya-granthi.

Madhusudana dispels this uncertainty by accepting ahaÅ kara as the combination of consciousness and the unconscious that is, Vidyarajya’s alternative interpretation. However, while, according to Vidyarajya, ahaÅ kara is the unity of the unconscious mind (antahkaraja) and its conscious locus, Madhusudana takes it to be the combination (or mutual identification) of antahkaraja and the consciousness limited by that antahkaraja. Thus, ahaÅ kara, or ahamartha (the phenomenon ‘I’) as described by Madhusudana, is neither just pure consciousness nor antahkaraja, but a ‘third’ entity brought about by the mutual identification between the consciousness and the unconscious antahkaraja (cidacidgranthirahaÅ kara).⁵⁰⁶ Thus the entity aham, ‘I’cannot be combined within the category of antahkaraja.

Madhusudana justifies such a concept on the basis of a common experience,

‘I cognise and am the agent’ (aham anubhavami karomi ca). If the aham anubhavami aspect of the experience is analysed separately, it may be concluded that the sensation (anubhuti) is not merely the mental mode encompassing a particular object, it is consciousness reflected upon the mode. Therefore if ‘I’ is taken to be the consciousness, then the experience ‘I am experiencing’ (ahamanubhavami) would mean ‘I am identical with the consciousness reflected upon the mental mode containing a particular object.’ Such an interpretation would lead to the conclusion that aham in aham anubhavami is consciousness itself. This would also lead to the conclusion that the aham karomi aspect of the experience means ‘I am the locus (afraya) of the agency, ’ when, in fact, this is antahkaraja. Therefore, aham in aham karomi should mean just the antahkaraja itself.

It is apparent that aham in both aspects – ‘I feel’ (aham anubhavami) and ‘I act’ (aham karomi) – refers to two different entities: consciousness in the first instance and the inner organ (antahkaraja) in the second. Viewed in this light, it is difficult to see how aham – as in aham anubhavami karomi ca – could be interpreted as a form of consolidated knowledge. Apparently aham, as expressed here, seems to refer to an entity that is neither mere consciousness nor mere inner organ (antahkaraja). According to Madhusudana, aham in this consolidated knowledge should be recognised as a third entity distinct from both consciousness and the unconscious antahkaraja.⁵⁰⁷ However, Madhusudana wants to conceive this third entity in terms of aham meaning both consciousness and the unconscious antahkaraja. In other words, Madhusudana takes the ‘I’-entity, (ahamartha) of the consolidated knowledge to arise from the mutual superimposition (anyo’nyadhyasa) of both phenomena. He says that ‘the knotted state of conscious and unconscious is ego while antahkaraja is just unconscious’ (cidacidgranthirahaÅ karah, acinmatramantahkarajam).

The primordial avidya, being charged with activity by the reflection of Ifvara, and with the help of the impressions of the actions of jiva in its previous birth (purva karmasaÅ skara), produces five cosmic elements: space or ether, air, fire, water and earth (akafa, vayu, tejas, ap and ksiti). However, each preceding element transfers its specific characteristic into the succeeding element because avidya, having evolved into the preceding element, is taken to be the material cause of the succeeding element. For this reason, a subtle sound can be found in the category of air, a tactile subtle element can be found in tajas, and so on.⁵⁰⁸ It may be noted that according to the SaÅ khya School, these elements are called ‘the five tanmatras’, all of which are independent of each other, while the Advaita-vedanta school sees them as connected with each other by a relationship of cause and effect.

From the primordial avidya, positive and physical phenomenon of darkness is produced, thus demonstrating that darkness is not merely the absence of light. The only characteristic of darkness lies in its being liable to immediate destruction by light: it quickly appears from avidya and disappears into it. Being subject to creation and destruction, darkness should be regarded as one of the positive empirical objects. The opponent asked when describing the genesis of the universe, none of the scriptures mention darkness as being generated, it is difficult to see why the author is describing its creation here.

In reply, Madhusudana states that the main subject matter of the scriptures is

Brahman.⁵⁰⁹ Other subjects are dealt with in the Vedas insofar as they are relevant to the discussion of Brahman. For example, the percipient self (jiva) with its physical body is discussed in the Vedas in order to establish the identification of the jiva with Brahman. While describing jiva’s physical body, its genesis is also discussed as a relevant topic. As darkness makes no contribution to the creation of the body, it is omitted in that context. However, its absence does not amount to non-recognition.⁵¹⁰

As stated earlier, the inner organ (antahkaraja), the collective product of the five subtle elements, possesses both the power of knowledge (jñ ana fakti) and the power of action (kriya fakti). Therefore, each of these subtle elements must be recognised as having the power of both knowledge and action. Hence, from each of the subtle elements, taken individually, emerge two organs of knowledge and action. The organ of knowledge is the product of the particular element when sattva dominates therein, whereas the organ of action is produced with the preponderance of rajas. Thus from akafa, the sense of audition and speech are created. The sense of touch and the organ of the hands are created from vayu. Tejas creates the sense of sight and the organ of the feet. Water evolves into the sense of taste and the organ of excretion, while earth creates the sense of nose and the organ of procreation. Corresponding to the products stated above, the deities are quarters and fire, wind and Indra, the Sun and Visju, Varuja and Mitra, and the two Afvins and Prajapati, respectively.⁵¹¹

The combination of five sense organs, five action organs, and five vital airs, mind (manas) and intelligence (buddhi), ⁵¹² constitute the subtle body (linga-farira). Hence this subtle body is dominated by cognitive power; it is called hirajyagarbha and sutratma (the pervader). The relationship between the cosmic subtle body and the cosmic gross body is similar to the relationship between the individual linga-farira and the individual gross body. Essentially, Hirajyagarbha and Sutratma are identical. The name hirajyagarbha suggests that in this aspect, the cosmic jiva is the self-revealing knowledge that illuminates everything. It is called sutratma because, just as a string of a gem necklace endures through all the gems, so Hirajyagarbha endures throughout all empirical existences and guides their actions.⁵¹³ Just as primal avidya is the limitation of Ifvara, so is the subtle (amurta) creation – consisting of the five subtle elements and the linga-farira – the limitation of jiva, both in its cosmic and individual aspects.

The empirical world: Murta prapañ ca

In order to create the gross body as well as the gross physical world, the five subtle elements undergo a special kind of mutual admixture. The process involved herein is known as the quin-quepartite process (pañ cikaraja prakriya). The special feature of this process is that each gross element created by pañ cikaraja prakriya possesses all five elements in disproportionate degrees. This is achieved in the following way. Each subtle element is divided into two equal portions; one part is further divided into four equal parts and is then distributed equally among the intact halves of the other four elements. Thus, each gross element arising out of this process possesses one-half of one element and one-eighth of each of the other four elements, with the gross element being named according to the element that predominates it. However, there is an alternative theory that instead of the quin-quepartite process described above, a tripartite process takes place. This view is based on the fruti, ⁵¹⁴ which states ‘each of them will be divided into three by me’. However, as the latter theory begins with tejas and excludes both space and wind from the fold of creation, pañ cikaraja prakriya should perhaps be regarded as, even if later, the more widely accepted explanation.

These gross five elements in combination create a single effect that is the seat of all organs and the instrument of all empirical enjoyment of jiva. Such an effect is known as the gross body (sthula farira). Bodies are of three kinds. Those dominated by sattva guja are known as divine bodies; those dominated by rajas guja are known as human bodies; and those dominated by tamas guja belong to inferior animals and plants. All three bodies, although made of the same five elements, vary in nature and dimension according to the variation of the proportion of elements. The external world is also from each of the individual gross elements. The external universe consists of fourteen worlds, all with their particular objects. These worlds are situated high above, down below or in the middle and the objects therein vary according to the proportion of the three gujas within each. All the creations of the five subtle elements – the gross body, the fourteen worlds and the objects therein – are inert and gross, and are known in combination as the Brahmajda delimiting the consciousness known as Virat (the vast).

The process of evolution can thus be summarised as follows.⁵¹⁵The un-evolved

(avyakrta) evolves into un-manifest (amurta) and amurta that is, the five elements, evolves into manifest, murta, creation. A combination of avidya and conditioned consciousness is the material cause of the entire creation. In other words, it is the semblance (abhasa) of consciousness, and not real consciousness, that is the material cause of the universe. Avidya is the evolving cause and the evolution is caused by cidabhasa. However, kutastha caitanya remains inert throughout and unaffected by the process of creation.

The process of involution follows the same sequence, but in reverse order.

Thus, the gross creation merges into amurta and amurta merges into avyakrta.⁵¹⁶

When the murta merges into the amurta creation, the consciousness corresponding to it – Virat – merges into Hirajyagarbha, which is the consciousness limited by the cosmic subtle body. This process is known as daily pralaya. When the amurta merges into avyakrta, Hirajyagarbha merges into Ifvara (the consciousness qualified by avidya). This is known as the prakrta pralaya. The unmanifest creation, being timeless, has no inert material cause therefore it has no state of dissolution in the sense that there is no material cause wherein it might dissolve. This is because the definition of laya is existence in a latent form within the material cause. The ultimate dissolution (atyantika pralaya) occurs through the true knowledge of Brahman as identical with jiva, which discards avidya. This absolute destruction is the eradication of all objects, since avidya (the material cause of the universe) is itself destroyed and the universe disappears once and for all.

The doctrine of karma

The doctrine of karma has been drawn up by the Advaita-vedanta as a corollary to the conception of a moralistic universe. It is taken to be actions, and the results of those actions, which pursue the performer of that action in his later birth. It continues to do so until it is exhausted by the resulting pleasure or pain. Thus, jiva’s experience of pleasure and pain is determined by the quality of karma in his previous birth and also controls his future course of action. To that extent, it prevents lawlessness and settles man into a disciplined expression of conduct. Although pleasure or pain represents the fruition of karma, such pleasure or pain is also dependant on other factors. For example, it requires a gross physical body, an organic instrument and a physical universe which can serve as its object. To make this possible, karma has to assist the primordial cause, avidya, in its creation. This is called adrsta. In the case of the theory of creation from a person (drsti-srsti-vada), karma lies in the avidya of the individual person which then has the nature of individual karma. In the case of creation from God having maya as His limiting adjunct (upadhi), as distinguished from avidya of jiva, the totality of karma lies in maya while individual karma exists in individual avidya. Such totality helps maya. While an individual transmigrates from one gross body to another, karma abides in his/her subtle body (likga farira) with which it enters into a fresh gross body.

When an individual person attains enlightenment all his karmas, except prarabdha, are destroyed before they can produce pleasure or pain. Prarabdha, the karma that has produced the existing gross body of the enlightened person, continues for some time until it is entirely exhausted. Preceding such exhaustion the individual continues to exist, although it is no longer subject to illusion and is therefore called jivanmukta (liberated while still continuing to live).

Thus karma, accumulated in numerous previous births, produces the experience of pleasure or pain. To make that experience possible it helps avidya in producing the world, consisting of the gross body, the sense organs and the physical objects necessary for the realisation of pleasure and pain.

In this enjoyment of pleasure or pain a person (jiva), in the state of waking, has to accept the help of his sense organs, for it is through these organs that a person’s inner sense organ conveys the physical world to him or her. These senses are created by avidya having Brahman as its substratum (adhisthana).

When jiva’s store of karma (that produces the physical objects of enjoyment) becomes exhausted, the false identification between the gross body and jiva is temporarily removed by a modification of tamo-guja known as sleep (nidra). At this time, divested of the superintendence of the presiding deities, the sense organs cease to operate. Jiva then enters into another world known as the world of dreams (svapna prapañ ca). The dream condition means the state in which objects are cognised by virtue of the mind’s latent impressions (vasana) of the individual’s waking experiences.⁵¹⁷ There are two views as to the source of the dream-objects. The first (which appears to be influenced by Buddhism) holds that they are the modifications of the mind cognised by avidya-vrtti. According to the other, avidya evolves both into the objects of dreams as well as the cognitive vrtti thereof. Madhusudana accepts the latter view because it favours the generalisation that in all cases of adhyasa, including dreams, avidya may be regarded as the material cause.⁵¹⁸ It is believed by some that jiva, limited by the mind should be regarded as the locus (adhisthana), while others hold that the adhisthana is Brahman qualified by ajñ ana. The argument in favour of the first view is that as the error of dreams is contradicted by knowledge of the waking state, the locus of the dream illusion has to be taken as known at that time, since illusion is removed only by the knowledge of adhisthana. However, if Brahman is regarded as the adhisthana of dreams, when that illusion is removed in the waking state the waking state itself cannot exist, since knowledge of Brahman is always followed by total disappearance of the universe. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that jiva is the adhisthana of dreams and in the waking state knowledge of jiva removes dream illusion. If the waking state removes dream illusion, such illusion is explicable by the assumption of a special avidya which might serve as the material cause of such illusion. This particular kind of avidya is removed by the waking consciousness (jagrat bodha).⁵¹⁹ As this conditional avidya (i.e. avasthajñ ana) is limitless, when one dream illusion is removed by ordinary knowledge, there is a possibility that another will take its place. As in the case of the shell-silver illusion, the removal of one such illusion does not guarantee that a similar illusion will not occur again in the same person.

Those who hold that Brahman limited by primordial ajñ ana is the locus of dream-objects argue that just as the illusion of the ‘rope-snake’ is removed by another illusion, that of the ‘rope-stick’ (rajjudajda), so also the dream illusion may be removed by the knowledge of waking state, which itself is an illusion. In both cases, the knowledge of the locus is unnecessary. Although the locus is the same Brahman, the dream-objects of each jiva vary according to the various latent impressions (vasana) of the individual mind. Thus both views are justified and as such, either jiva or Brahman would adequately serve as the locus of dream-objects.

Tiring of enjoyment in the waking and dream states, jiva sometimes enters into a third state known as susupti which means deep sleep. The proof of the existence of this state is the waking experience of the jiva of having had a pleasurable dreamless sleep. At that time, the inner sense organ of the person, which is limited by jñ anafakti and retains all the impressions (vasana) latent within it, merges into its material cause, avidya. At that time, there exist only Saksi and vrttis of avidya, that is, vrttis in the forms of personal ignorance, (ajñ ana) and happiness.⁵²⁰

7

ADVAITA-VEDANTA SALVATION

The ultimate goal, a Fastra aims at to teach is the liberation from suffering. But for Madhusudana, it also brings about transcendental bliss. We must not loose sight of Madhusudana’s love for Krsja which I shall be discussing soon. For him bliss is Brahman and hence is desired and loved (cf., parama premaspadatvat).

In Advaita-vedanta, liberation, is not the resultant state that jiva should attain.

According to this school, liberation (mukti/moksa) is an ever-accomplished fact; it is nothing but Brahman itself. It is the revelation of absolute bliss.⁵²¹ Absolute cessation of misery, which precedes liberation, implies the blissfulness of liberation, and jiva aspires to achieve it for that bliss. Vedantic moksa is thus not mere cessation of misery. It is absolute bliss.⁵²² Madhusudana maintains that liberation is in fact identical with one’s own real self, atman, which is integral, all-blissful, non-dual consciousness. It is pure and transcendental existence.⁵²³ Such liberation is, however, indicated by (upalaksita) knowledge, known as the special cognitive mode that presents an integral, monolithic undifferentiated and nonconceptual content (akhajdakara cittavrtti), which comprehends the unity between jiva and Brahman. This true knowledge dispels avidya and the cessation of avidya by knowledge leaves atman the only existent entity. There is therefore no question of a second reality, namely the state of cessation of avidya, apart from Brahman.⁵²⁴ Although liberation of the soul is an established fact and therefore does not require any effort, the spiritual endeavour prescribed by Vedanta is far from useless. Because it is prescribed in the Vedic injunction embodied in the fruti, atma va are frotavya etc.⁵²⁵ Fravana, brings about realisation, embracing the unity between jiva and Brahman. With the dawning of such knowledge, the primordial ignorance absolutely ceases to exist and the self, being free from the cloud of ignorance, bursts forth in its pristine glory. This self-revelation of the self is liberation.

A question arises challenging the operation of knowledge to terminate all ignorance. The Advaitins hold that knowledge brings about the cessation of avidya, but this contention seems to be unwarranted, since the external world does not furnish any evidence to that effect.⁵²⁶

ADVAITA-VEDANTA SALVATION

Madhusudana maintains that though no ordinary illustration may be available to bear upon this issue, evidence can still be drawn upon for that purpose:

The fruti states that jiva can become identical with Brahman by knowledge of

Brahman.⁵²⁷ To attain such identification, one has to remove the ignorance which, as the fruti itself states, separates Brahman from jiva.⁵²⁸ Hence, on the authority of fruti it is proved that knowledge of Brahman removes ignorance regarding Brahman. Ignorance conceals truth from jiva but this veil of ignorance is discarded forever by the dawning of the ever-shining truth, that Brahman is identical with jiva.

This knowledge, which finally breaks down the wall of ignorance in respect of the knowledge of the identification of jiva with Brahman, is imparted by great scriptural statements such as, ‘That thou art’ (tat tvam asi)⁵²⁹ and ‘I am Brahman

(aham Brahmasmi).’⁵³⁰ These great sentences generate direct knowledge of Brahman, at once destroying ignorance, and Brahman thus becomes revealed.

They communicate one undifferentiated, integral meaning, namely atman or

Brahman. Though all the Vedantic texts indicate Brahman, these statements directly shatter the ignorance standing between jiva and Brahman. Hence they are regarded by the Advaita-vedantins as principal Vedantic statements.

The exposition given by Madhusudana on the Vedic statement ‘atma va are drastavyah frotavyo mantavyo nididhyasitavyah etc.’ throws an interesting light upon this issue. Madhusudana takes it to mean that ‘darfana, that is, direct experience of Brahman’ is the goal of this statement. Such seeing produces akhajdakara cittavrtti. Hearing, reflecting and meditating, as prescribed by the aforesaid fruti, are useful inasmuch as they remove impurities from the mind. Thus, fravana means vicara (discussion) that results from the determination of the intended denotative meanings of the constituent words of the Vedic statements producing knowledge of identity. Such determination discards doubt from the mind as to whether the Vedic statements can establish any identity between jiva and Brahman, insofar as the Vedas, according to the MimaÅ sa school, cannot be other than a prescription of an act or its prohibition. This identity, being a fact, does not fall within the purview of either prescription or prohibition.⁵³¹ Manana is the discursive thinking that reaffirms the subject matter which in the present context, is the identity between jiva and Brahman. It removes from the mind the distractive misgivings about this identity. Concentration of mind is dependant upon the removal of doubts regarding the reality of Brahman and its identity with jiva. Nididhyasana is deep contemplation, that is, an intense mental effort (prayatna) regarding the identity between jiva and Brahman. Such contemplation brings about, in due course, a preparedness of mind for the uninterrupted flow of akhajdakara cittavrtti regarding this identity. Nididhyasana removes from the mind the deep-rooted impression based on the false identity between the physical body and the individual soul. Nididhyasana therefore must be conceived to culminate in knowledge which contradicts the false knowledge of identity between jiva and its body.⁵³² Such knowledge, however, precedes and is therefore different from, akhajdakaracittavrtti, which is the special contribution of Mahavakyas.

ADVAITA-VEDANTA SALVATION

In this way, fravana establishes that the great sentences have their final import in the identity of jiva and Brahman. Manana reaffirms the same truth by disabusing the mind of all misgivings and doubts that might arise from the logical plane of mind regarding the stated truth. Nididhyasana ingrains the same truth so deeply in the mind that the false identification of jiva with the physical body, which has pursued the person from time immemorial, becomes shaken. In this way, when the mind becomes free from all misconceptions regarding the identity between jiva and Brahman – in other words, when the mind becomes adequately receptive – then the great Vedantic statements present to the mind akhajdakaracittavrtti, which brings avidya to its end.⁵³³ Since most of the discussion of how such realisation can remove primordial ignorance has already been dealt with in previous chapters I shall only mention the fact that Madhusudana makes a departure from both the Vivaraja and Bhamati schools of thought regarding this issue.

⇐ Предыдущая567891011121314Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: