Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/491

 x] A tmall and Jlva 475 pearance of all our world experience. This goes directly against the jftatata theory of Kumarila that consciousness was not im- mediate but was only inferable from the manifesting quality (jiiiitatii) of objects when they are known in consciousness. N ow Vedanta says that this self-luminous pure consciousness is the same as the sel( For it is only self which is not the object of any knowledge and is yet immediate and ever present in consciousness. Noone doubts about his own self, because it is of itself manifested along with all states of knowledge. The self itself is the revealer of all objects of knowledge, but is never itself the object of knowledge, for what appears as the perceiving of self as object of knowledge is but association comprehended under the term aharpkara ( ego). The real self is identical with the pure manifesting unity of all consciousness. This real self called the atman is not the same as the jlva or individual soul, which passes through the diverse experiences of worldly life. lSvara also must be distinguished from this highest atman or Brahman. We have already seen that many Vedantists draw a distinction between maya and avidya. Maya is that aspect of ajftana by which only the best attributes are projected, whereas avidya is that aspect by which impure qualities are projected. I n the former aspect the functions are more of a creative, generative (vikfepa) type, whereas in the latter veiling (iivara?la) characteristics are most prominent. The rela- tion of the cit or pure intelligence, the highest self, with maya and avidya (also called ajftana) was believed respectively to explain the phenomenal Isvara and the phenomenal jlva or individual. This relation is conceived in two ways, namely as upadhi or pratibim ba, and avaccheda. The conception of pratibimba or reflection is like the reflection of the sun in the water where the image, though it has the same brilliance as the sun, yet undergoes the effect of the impurity and movements of the water. The sun remains ever the same in its purity untouched by the impurities from which the image sun suffers. The sun may be the same but it may be reflected in different kinds of water and yield different kinds of images possessing different characteristics and changes which though unreal yet phenome- nally have all the appearance of reality. The other conception of the relation is that when we speak of akasa (space) in the jug or of aka sa in the room. The akasa in reality does not suffer