ajAti vAda

I would like to end on a note of caution against reading too much into the names of these
vAdas. The names are meant to capture the most significant thread of discussion in each
vAda, but it is easy to be misled into an analysis of the respective positions that
concentrates only on their names and forgets all the other allied arguments that are not
specifically mentioned in the name. Each vAda touches upon every issue that is of
concern to the advaita vedAntin, but in slightly different ways. Besides, a given advaita
teacher may teach different aspirants differently, based on differing aptitudes. All
vedAntins of non-advaita schools are necessarily sRshTi-dRshTi vAdins in their own
way, but they can never be dRshTi-sRshTi vAdins or ajAti vAdins. An advaitin, on the
other hand, may teach students according to either dRshTi-sRshTi vAda or sRshTidRshTi
vAda, but all versions of these vAdas will return to the basic Atman = brahman
equation. In the final analysis, as long as moksha remains the prime issue around which
every discussion revolves, ajAti vAda always remains, and every advaitin returns to it,
whatever other vAda he uses when talking of vyavahAra. Thus, no true advaitin will
deny ajAtivAda, although he may rarely talk of it, and he probably will not actively teach
it to anybody but the most advanced student.
THE PROBLEM OF ONE VS. MANY
Transliteration Key
SankarAcArya, following the upanishads, asserts that the sole cause of the universe is
the One brahman that is really nirguNa. The problem with asserting One brahman that is
without parts, changeless and eternal, as the only cause of the universe is this - the
universe is normally perceived to be full of many separate parts which change all the
time, and has little that is eternal in it. How is it that the changeless and non-relational
brahman produces the variegated universe? This is related to the larger philosophical
problem of change and continuity, which had historically played such a big role in
Indian thinking that many buddhist schools had denied that an eternal entity like
brahman could even exist. Moreover, in the buddhist schools, the notion of an Atman is
itself an erroneous concept, because everything was defined to be momentary.
Among the brahminical schools, the nyAya and vaiSeshika schools handled the problem
of change by postulating atoms (aNus) as the unit constituents of any entity.
Transformation and change were explained by means of combinations of integral
numbers of atoms (dvayaNuka, trayaNuka etc.), and the individual Atman was also
supposed to be atomic in size and qualities. A creator God (ISvara) was arrived at by an
inferential argument, on the premise that everything must have a cause of some sort, so
that the cause of the universe is God. This inferred ISvara was then identified with the
brahman of the vedas. The yoga and sAm.khya schools postulated ultimate reality to be
a duality of purusha and prakRti. The purusha was said to be changeless and the one
undergoing bondage and liberation owing to contact with or withdrawal from prakRti.