Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/508

 49 2 The Saizkara School oJ Vedilllta [CH. of the illusions subjective or objective which could make any knowledge, action, or feeling possible for him. Such a man is called ji1/anmukta, i.e. emancipated while living. For him all world-appearance has ceased. He is the one light burning alone in himself where everything else has vanished for ever from the stage l. Vedanta and other Indian Systems. Vedanta is distinctly antagonistic to Nyaya, and most of its powerful dialectic criticism is generally directed against it. Sankara himself had begun it by showing contradictions and inconsistencies in many of the N yaya conceptions, such as the theory of causation, conception of the atom, the relation of sama- vaya, the conception of jati, etc. 2 His followers carried it to still greater lengths as is fully demonstrated by the labours of Srlhara, Citsukha, Madhusudana, etc. It was opposed to Mlmarpsa so far as this admitted the N yay a- V aiseika categories, but agreed with it generally as regards the prama1).as of anumana, upamiti, arthapatti, sabda, and anupalabdhi. It also found a great sup- porter in Mlmarpsa with its doctrine of the self-validity and self- manifesting power of knowledge. But it differed from Mlmarpsa in the field of practical duties and entered into many elaborate discussions to prove that the duties of the Vedas referred only to ordinary men, whereas men of higher order had no Vedic duties to perform but were to rise above them and attain the highest knowledge, and that a man should perform the Vedic duties only so long as he was not fit for Vedanta instruction and studies. With Sarpkhya and Yoga the relation of Vedanta seems to be very close. We have already seen that Vedanta had accepted all the special means of self-purification, meditation, etc., that were advocated by Yoga. The main difference between Vedanta and Sarpkhya was this that Sarpkhya believed that the stuff of which the world consisted was a reality side by side with the puruas. In later times Vedanta had compromised so far with Sarpkhya that it also sometimes described maya as being made up of sattva, rajas, and tamas. Vedanta also held that according to these three characteristics were formed diverse modifications 1 See Faflcadafi. 2 See Sai1kara's refutation of Nyiiya, "a1ikara-bhiifya, II. ii.