Upadhi Khandanam

 नारायणोगण्यगुणनित्यैकनिलयाकृतिः ।

अशेषदोषरहितः प्रीयतां कमलालयः ।।

Upadhi Khandana is a short text 16 verses. Its primary purpose is to refute the Upadhi concept of Advaita. It forms a part of three Prakarana Texts that Acharya has composed to refute the basic tenets of Advaita viz., Maya, Mithya and Upadhi.

Invocation

Acharya sets out by an invocation to Lord Vishnu. He extols Lord Vishnu to be an abode of infinite auspicious qualities. He is devoid of any blemishes. Acharya prays to Lord Vishnu, the Lord of Goddess Lakshmi for his benevolence.

Central Theme

The basic tenet of Advaita is that the entire universe is formed out of illusion of self. Acharya finds this tenet of Advaita to be untenable and refutes it in this text.

Viel of Ignorance to whom?

When Advaitin says that this Universe is an appearence due to the viel of ignorance, a question arises whether the ignorance is an affliction onto the Brahman or to an entity different from the Brahman.

Supreme Brahman cannot be under spell of ignorance

Advaitin would not be in a position to accept that the Supreme Brahman to be under the spell of ignorance as he is omniscient. As per the Advaita position, there is no one else other than the Brahman. Hence, the Advaitin cannot attribute the ignorance to anyone else.

The Upadhi Theory

It is here that the Advaitin introduces the concept of Upadhi. He claims that the ignorance can be attributed to the Jiva. Just as the eye sees two objects when someone presses on the eye flaps, or as a reflection is created when a mirror is placed in front of an object, the Supreme Brahman gets an unreal appearence as Jiva under the spell of Upadhi. The veil of ignorance can now be attributed to the Jiva. Hence, thanks to the Upadhi theory, the Supreme Brahman is spared of any ignorance.

Origin of Upadhi

At this point, Sri Acharya questions the Advaitin about the very origin of this Upadhi. Is the claimed Upadhi exists by itself or is it an effect of Ignorance (Agnyana)? If the Upadhi exists by itself (non-illusory) then the Advaitin stands to lose out on the theory of Advaita. Brahman is the only real entity as per the Advaita dictum. If the Upadhi is another non-illusory entity then we have a case where there are two real entities in the Universe viz., 1) Brahman and 2) Upadhi. The Advaitin clearly cannot agree to this as this goes against his very fundamental tenet that there is only one reality.

Upadhi cannot be an effect of illusion

The only option with the Advaitin now would be to say that the Upadhi is an effect of illusion. But this is also not tenable. If the cause of ignorance i.e the Upadhi is agreed upon to be its effect, then this amounts to a case of infinite-regress. The appearence of the Jiva is created and ignorance attributed to it because of Upadhi. But, Upadhi is itself an effect of some illusion. And illusion can happen only due to some Upadhi. Even if it is agreed upon that there is only one set of Upadhi and Illusion, the Advaitin cannot escape form the defect of mutual reference.

Circular Reference in Upadhi Theory

To this the Advaitin may remark - We only say that Upadhi is an effect of ignorance. But ignorance is not caused due to Upadhi. Upadhi only causes the "difference". But this position is also untenable as this still amounts to a fallacy of circular reference. Ignorance causes Upadhi. Upadhi causes difference. Difference facilitates ignorance in the Jeeva.

Upadhi cannot create difference

The position that Upadhi gives rise to difference is also untenable. Upadhi can only highlight an existing difference and not create it afresh. Like in the case of a pot that could only be a medium to demarcate a region of space that already exists.

Logical flaw if Upadhi creates difference

If the pot were to create a region in the space afresh, would it do it by contacting a region of space or otherwise? In the former case, one must agree that the region already exists apriori. If the pot could demarcate without contacting the region, then anything can demarcate anything. Also, is the contact of the pot accepted to be only to a region or to the entire space? It cannot act as a demarker if it contacts the entire space. If it is contact a region, that means the space has several such regions by default. If not, there will be an infinite-regress.

Refutation of the Theory of Identity

Acharya further refutes the identity by the following logic. If there were to be an identity of the Brahman with the Jeeva, then the all the sorrow of the Jeeva will have to be experienced by the Brahman as well. But it is well established that the Brahman does not experience any sorrow. This shows that they are two different entities and are not non-different. To this point, the Advaitin says that due to the Upadhi, the experiences will differ. For example, the hand does not experience the pain caused in the leg and vice versa. Why? This is due to the different Upadhi's like Hand and Leg. Though the body is one, it is because of the difference in the Upadhi that the experiences are different in different portions. In the same way, though there is identity, the Brahman and the Jeeva experience differently.

Untenability of non-difference

To his Acharya replies - it is not correct to say that the experience is shared only when there is no difference in the Upadhis. Though there is difference in the Upadhi's like hands and legs, the pain is experienced by the soul who is non-different. Because the experiencer is one, the pain in the leg or had is experienced by him only. In the same way, if there is identity between the Brahman and the Jeevas, then the experience should be same to both.

To this the Advaitin replies - the Jeeva experiences joy or pain though the Upadhis are different. It is because of the fact that the Upadhis hands and legs are connected to each other by being the parts of the same body. But in the case of Brahman, the Upadhi is not connected. Hence there is no shared experience.

Achraya says - A yogin called Saubhari assumed 50 bodies at the same time and experienced the joy and pain of all of them at once. This shows that though the Upadhis are disjoint, the experience is same to the Jeeva. Applying the same logic, the Brahman and Jeeva should have the same experience. The Yogis such as Saubhari wish to have several bodies so that they can have the experience. But as per the Advaitin, if there is no experience, then there is no point in taking several forms.

Conclusion

Hence the Dvaita doctrine of instrinsic difference between the Brahman and the individual souls is authentic and stands irrefutable. 

मायावादतमोव्याप्तमिति तत्वदृशा जगत् ।

भातं सर्वज्ञसूर्येण प्रूतये श्रीपतेस्सदा ।।

नमोमन्दनिजानन्दसान्द्रसुन्दरमूर्तये । 

इन्दिरापतये नित्यानन्दभोजनदायिने ।।