Upadi Khandana Teeka of Srimad Jayatheertha-Teekakruthpaadaru is published in kannada and Sanskrit downloadable format :
The Central doctrine of Advaita is Atmaikya i.e. Brahman alone is ultimate Reality.
However, we are in the midst of manifold empirical world. The emergence of this manifold world and the jiva has to be explained. How this one brahman is developed into many and what is the status of these has to be explained.
Three important concepts which forms the base of advaita are:
1) Ajnana 2) Mithyatva and 3) Upadhi
It is Ajnana i.e. Avidhya that projects the world over brahman.
It bifurcates the jivas and jagat by playing the role of upadhi i.e an adjunct or a conditioning factor.
The status of the jiva and jagat brought about by ajnana/avidhya is mithya i.e neither real nor totally unreal. In this way these three concepts explain emergence and the status of the manifold empirical world.
Dwaita rejects these three concepts and rejects the theory of Atmaikya and the mithyatva of the Jiva and Jagat
Sri Madhwacharya has composed three small treatises 1) Mayavada-Khandana 2) Mithyatvanumana Khandana 3) Upadhikhandana to reject these concepts of advaita. He has rejected these concepts in detail in his major works. Here, he has put the main drawback of these concepts in a nutshell.
In Mayavada-khandana the concept of Ajnana is rejected. In Mithyatvanumana-khandana, the concept of mithyatva is rejected.
In this Work i.e Upadi-Khandana, it is clearly pointed out that the so called Ajnana cannot play the role of upadhi/an adjunct or conditioning factor for Brahman and manage the bifurcation of brahman into Jivas and jagat. The Ajnana playing the role of upadi is rejected on the following grounds.
1. Ajnana has no ashraya-Locus, nor Visaya (Topic/subject/Domain) the object to operate upon (Origin/source/base) – According to Advaita there is no second object than brahman. Brahman is Sarvajna. Therefore he cannot be the locus or the object to be affected by Ajnana.
2. The question whether the so called Ajnana plays the role of Upadi in a real way or plays it illusorily? If it plays the role of Upadi in a real way and bifurcates brahman into Jiva and jagat, then advaita position is given up
3. In case it plays its role illusorily, it results in interdependence. Jiva will have Ajnana only when he is bifurcated by Ajnana and Ajnana can play its role only when it is located in Jiva.
Incidentally the concept of upadhi adopted by Bhaskara is also rejected.
According to Bhaskara, Antahkarana is upadhi. it is real. Brahman is bifurcated into many jivas by the upadhi of Antahkarana. There are as many antahkaraNas as there are jivas. The difference brought about by antahkaranas is also real however, it is not natural.
The above claim of Bhaskara is rejected on the following grounds:
1. An adjunct does not cause the difference but only indicated it. When the part of the cloth is coloured, the adjunce colour only indicates the difference between the coloured and uncoloured parts but does not create the part. Even in the case of Akasha within a Jar, etc. the difference between the Akasha in the Jara and outside is not caused, it is only indicated.
2. If the upadhi has to cause the difference, then the question arise as to whether it differentiates by actually contacting the object concerned or without contacting? The second alternative is not feasible. In the first alternative whether its contact is with a part of the object or the whole of it. if it is with a part, then, to cause that part another upadhi will be required. Similar question will arise in respect of that upadhi also. This will lead to infinite regress.
3. In view of the above, it is not possible to work out the difference between Iswara and Jiva by utilizing the concept of Upadhi it has to be accepted as natural and real otherwise, it would be difficult to account for the difference in the experience of Joy and Sorrow.
After refuting the views of those who tried to manage the difference between brahman and jiva by utilizing the concepts of Mithyopadhi and Sathyopadhi, the author established the Jiva-Ishara-Bhedha by Prathyaksha-Perception, Anumaana-Logic/Inference, Sruthi – Agama/Veda.
So far as one’s own self is concerned it is Saakshiprathyakshasiddhi. The self of others could be ascertained by their activity This enables to comprehend the difference between the two.
The difference between Iswara and Jiva also is comprehended by prathyaksha by the realization of one’s own limited nature and the greatness of God conveyed by Shruti. The limited nature of oneself is cognized by perception.
The Shruti यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित् etc. declare the greatness of Iswara. The Sruti नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन does not deny the world. it denies the difference between the God and His attributes.
Since the very concept of Ajnana, Avidya, is rejected, the advaita scheme of eligibility, subject matter, the goal and the relation among these becomes irrelevant and he cannot proceed to explore the scripture.
From the above analysis, it is clear that the three concepts 1. Ajnana 2) Mithyatva 3) Upadhi cannot stand the logical scrutiny.
Srimad Jayatheertharu’s lucid but astounding delineation of these aspects are to be experienced. No words can explain the joy of lovely explanation which He does with ease, to highlight Acharya Madhwa’s heart.
Let us experience ourselves, by delving deep into to this small but fathomless work.
Click the link below to immerse :