REFUTATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF VOID
The followers of this school of thought declare that illusion can and does arise even in the absence of any background
(niradhishtaana). In the case of a piece of shell appearing as silver, they say that the knowledge of silver is groundless (i.e., void);
similarly with the knowledge of the Self. Their position is briefly put as follows: On the firm conviction that the jagat is non-existent,
by a prolonged contemplation on the void, the thought of jagat completely vanishing, void prevails and this is liberation.
Now to refute it – denial of the jagat is imperfect knowledge. Just as a pot is not altogether false but is real as clay, so also is jagat
not altogether false but is real as intelligence. Therefore to deny the jagat as being nonexistent is only illusory knowledge. Its
non-existence cannot be established by any proofs. Because the jagat shines as knowledge from which the individual who proves
the jagat to be real or unreal, is not distinct; also the jagat though denied yet persists. Though a pot may be denied, its material
clay cannot be so denied. Similarly though the jagat may be denied, its existence as knowledge cannot be denied. The same
relationship holds between the jagat and consciousness as between a pot and clay. However the adherents of the school of void
stick to void and deny all the perceptible as being void. But he is also contained in the jagat which is denied by him. Then what is
left of him beyond denial is knowledge; this cannot be denied. They mean to say that the moded consciousness constitutes
samsara whereas unmoded consciousness void of all else including the pramaanas to prove it, constitutes liberation. But our
objection is that the one who denies the jagat cannot deny himself and the jagat does not cease to exist simply because one
curses it. Our objection is valid because consciousness subsists unimpaired in the unmoded state after denying all else to exist.
Q.: (Granting your view point) what is there to be eliminated and how is non-duality established? A.: The Vedantists say that the
Supreme Sat-Chit seems to be the asat (false) jagat like the false reflection in a mirror; this is anirvachaniya, i.e., inexpressible;
non-duality consists in removing this confusion and so this jagat is eliminated. But we say – the jagat appears like the images in a
mirror. Just as these images are no other than the mirror, the jagat is no other than the Sat-Chit. Q.: If so, what remains to be
eliminated? A.: The sense of duality. Q.: Is this duality included in jagat? Or is it exclusive of it? If the former, it is real as jagat and
cannot be negated; if the latter, it leads to anirvachaniya. A.: It is included in jagat. Q.: How then is it eliminated? A.: Listen! Duality
is to believe that the illuminant and the illumined are different from each other. Since duality is nothing but illusion, denial of it puts
an end to the illusion and thus to itself. Hence it was said, “As a matter of fact unity is not different from diversity. One reality alone
shines forth as both.”
Now let me turn round and question the Vedantists – Q.: Is negation indescribable or real? If the former, jagat cannot be negated; if
the latter, duality results. Nor can you maintain that negation of the phenomenon resolves itself as the substratum so that the
negation of Jagat results in its substratum, Brahman. Of course to admit the non-self-looking negation is simply included in the Self
and the whole jagat is nothing but the Self, is not opposed to our view. But negation is negative in character and it cannot be said to
resolve itself into its substratum – the Reality. The jagat can be established to exist according to the dictum – the non-self is also the
Self. The point is only to gain purushaartha by whatever means – negation or any other. It is useless to engage in disputes. ‘The
mumukshu’ and the ‘sadhakas’ are warned not to enter into controversies with other systems or religions.
The jagat being of consciousness, like the images in a mirror not being different from a mirror, it is real. Simply because jagat is
declared to be of the nature of consciousness, it should not be taken that jagat is consciousness itself. Such assumption will be
equivalent to saying that avidya is, because it is said to be inexpressible. Just as you cannot raise the question if avidya is in order
to be inexpressible, so also the question cannot arise if jagat is in order to be indistinct from Consciousness. In this manner to know
that all is sattaamaatra is perfect Vijnaana.
Sri Ramanarpanamastu