Posted at 11.18.2018
In section two, we have seen that the thought of sarvamukti is thought provoking and influencing in Sarvepalli Radhakrishnans philosophy. His key propositions, non-duality of actuality; world as simple fact; and the divine character of man, seems to be logical and Upanisadic. However, this section aims to critically study the idea of sarvamukti in the light the idea of liberation in advaita which is mentioned in the last section. This leads us to critical conclusions on sarvamukti pointing to both advantages and weaknesses. These critical conclusions eventually pave just how for the next chapter in which some significant implications are described for both theory and practice of religious beliefs in India today. Further, at the end of this chapter, a brief Religious reaction to sarvamukti is roofed and its goal is also described in that particular section.
4. 1. 1 Philosophical Affects and Reasons
Before considering the major issues in Radhakrishnan's philosophy of sarvamukti, it is significant to critically examine his methodology in articulating it. Radhakrishnan is to begin with a Hindu and a solid believer of advaita, especially of the custom of Sankar charya. During his studies at Madras Christian School, he was often disappointed with the criticisms created by european missionaries about the advaita understanding of world as illusion which suggests life on earth as meaningless and so inefficacy of ethics.
Responding to the American criticism on advaita, he had written The Ethics of Advaita Vedanta for his M. A thesis. After that he extended to bring some sort of reconciliation between Western and Eastern thought. This means that his philosophical departure started out with the purpose of building a bridge between your East and the Western. Actually, he was called as "bridge constructor" by a lot of his contemporaries. Further, he noticed that the crisis of the modern man was individualism and self-centeredness and every specific religion being self concentrated and negative towards other faiths. Therefore responding to these issues, he believed that Indian viewpoint would bring answers for humanity's spiritual progress.
He has implemented a universalistic outlook in his effort to build a bridge between your East and the Western. At the first General Meeting of the UNESCO in Paris in November 1946, Radhakrishnan announced, "To improve the world we must return to an idealist view, to philosophic thought, to religious values. " He assumed that it is unfair to criticize other's culture and religion and at the same time believe in one's own culture as supreme over others. In his words, "those who condemn Indian culture as inadequate are ignorant of computer, while those who commend it as perfect are ignorant of another. "
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Swami Vivekananda are two significant Indian religious figures who have deeply influenced Radhakrishnan and his universalistic approach to philosophy. Because of this, he strongly assumed that various spiritual teachings represent different paths to the same future. To claim this, he has thoroughly used a comparative technique in his writings, especially to draw out the unity between East and Western world. This is why, though not often, he does not hesitate to make reference to Buddhism, Jainism and Religious trust in his discussions on the Overall.
4. 1. 2 Resources for Radhakrishnan's Philosophy
Radhakrishnan has indeed added a lot to human being thought. However, he did not get away criticism from both outside and inside India about his approach to articulating philosophical ideas. While some adored him as a genuine thinker, many others have disagreed to recognize him as a philosopher in his own right. Some identified him as only historian or chronicler of Hindu thought. Many Western scholars criticized him by directing that he frequently misinterpreted Religious faith to be able to bring parallels with the Indian thought. On the other hand, he was also criticized by the Indian scholars that he has distorted the Hindu text messages in order to make them relevant for the West.
Radhakrishnan has written many books in large quantities, several articles and also given numerous messages on different occasions. When this happens, there's a possibility of earning some mistakes in interpreting the text or in his announcements. However, it will not be dismissed that the manuscripts of his works were thoroughly read by significant scholars. For instance, the manuscripts and proofs of the first volume of his Indian School of thought were read by J. S. Mackenzie, V. Subrahmanya Aiyar and A. B. Keith. The next volume level was also read by the same people. During this work, he has received valuable ideas from Hiriyanna and valuable advices from Kuppuswami Sastri and Anantkrishna Sastri. These great scholars didn't explain any errors and misinterpretations in Radhakrishnan's writings.
Pointing to the standing of Radhakrishnan's philosophical writings, Gopal Singh says,
The basic program of his [Radhakrishnan] writings is to present the traditional Indian thought, as it is found in the Upanisads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma stra. He is one of those determined interpreters of the Indian thought who take Indian viewpoint and Indian religions as a unified thought system.
When we look at the methodology of Radhakrishnan in his school of thought of sarvamukti, it is evident that it will involve a textual exposition. The primary resources for his ideas and the arguments presented with regard to brahman, world and tman will be the Upanisads, Brahmastra and the Bhagavadgita which will be the triple text messages of advaita. Another significant source is the Sankar charya's commentaries that happen to be also quite significant in the exposition of advaita idea. Therefore, definitely he has used proper texts for his exposition on sarvamukti.
However, this does not imply that he has rightly interpreted the texts. Definitely, his writings are filled with scriptural estimates. He also identifies many historical information like Buddha, Jesus, St Paul, Greek thinkers and Church fathers. He also refers to many modern scholars. In such circumstance, it is difficult to suspect whether his citations and interpretations correspond to their original interpretation. But, a careful evaluation will disclose the fact there are misinterpretations in his writings. T. R. V. Murthi, though being a good admirer of Radhakrishnan, after critically studying some of his writings criticizes Radhakrishnan for using texts out of their context. Indeed, we shall see a few of such misinterpretations in his notion of sarvamukti as well in the later sections.
4. 1. 3 Radhakrishnan's Use of Sankar charya's Writings
Radhakrishnan did use Sankar charya's writings directly. Rather, he reinterpreted them to get his ideas. Though he has admiration for great experts, "ancient and modern, Eastern and European, " and received wisdom from them, zhe asserts that he had not been a follower of some of them by recognizing their teachings completely. He also admits that he does not like to be recognized with any permanent traditional style. He says that his pondering proceeds from his own experience rather than acquired by just learning and reading. He is convinced that philosophy is born of religious experience and not necessarily produced from reasoning and an come across with reality is essential to produce philosophy. Therefore he says,
I have attempted to talk my insight into the meaning of life. I am uncertain, however, that I've been successful in conveying my inmost ideas. I attempted showing that my basic position offers a valid interpretation of the world, which appears to me to be regular with itself, to accord with the reality as we realize them, and foster the life span of soul.
Perhaps, Radhakrishnan has justifying known reasons for his reinterpretation of Sankar charya's writings. However, he cannot get away the criticism for being unfaithful to the traditions. In Indian context, especially in regards to to the Hindu religion, tradition plays a significant role. Generally, those who hold on to their custom will have great respect than those who break the practices. Being a follower of advaita, Radhakrishnan is expected to preserve the tradition of Sankar charya rather than giving a new so this means for Sankar charya's writings and change from him. This is why some categorize Radhakrishnan as a neo-advaitin somewhat than an advaitin.
This is never to argue that Sankar charya's writings should not be reinterpreted. Somewhat, it is to state that advaita custom started with Sankar charya and therefore, differing from him indicates differing from tradition as well. In fact, with regard to his views on sarvamukti in "Sarvamukti: A Symposium, " he clearly admits that Sankar charya may be interpreted to get his views. Therefore that Radhakrishnan's interpretation of Sankar charya is not necessarily the interpretation. Alternatively, he might have reinterpreted Sankar charya with regard to his quarrels. On other occasion with regard to my, he says, "I might perhaps develop Samkara's suggestive idea [on my] in my own way. " Therefore, as Brightman highlights, it is doubtful whether Radhakrishnan is quite good in interpreting Sankar charya.
On the other side, Radhakrishnan defenses himself that it's not possible to present the historical data without personal bias while exposing them with the purpose of delivering its relevance for today. However, he will not disregard the problems in such strategy. Regarding this, his words are well worth quoting here,
The article writer may at times allow his personal bias to ascertain his presentation. His work at best will be a personal interpretation and not an impersonal survey. There is also the danger that we are inclined to interpret early systems in a manner suitable to modern minds. Ordinarily a sense of hero-worship exalts the classical thinkers above the level of record. I tried not to overstate any circumstance or indulge in personal dislike because of its own sake. Intellectual unselfishness or humility is the mom of most writing, even although writing may relate with the annals of idea. In all philosophical interpretation, the right method is to interpret thinkers at their finest, in the light of what they state in as soon as of the clearest insight. I am aware of the constraints of the comparative method which can either be a bane or a blessing. If the systems of viewpoint are themselves determined by historical circumstances, there is no reason why the method implemented in historical interpretation should not look at the needs and conditions of the age.
Two things must be noted from the above offer. On one hand, Radhakrishnan thinks that the proper approach to interpreting the thinkers is in the light of the clearest insight. This means that personal thoughts should not be imposed after the thoughts of the thinkers. On the other hand, Radhakrishnan is convinced that while personal bias is inevitable, it is affordable to obtain because the philosophical systems are themselves developed in historical circumstances. But, the condition with this sort of way is the fact there would be a blending of another aim with the correct goal of historical writing. This implies, for example regarding Radhakrishnan's use of Sankar charya's writings, he has argued for things that Sankar charya might have not supposed.
For the above reasons, Radhakrishnan was heavily criticized by the Mind (Apr 1926), a British isles journal on philosophy which happens to be publicized by Oxford School press on behalf of Mind Association. Nevertheless, in response to prospects critics he says,
The historian of beliefs must address his task, much less a mere philiologist or even while a secular but as a philosopher who uses his scholarship as a musical instrument to wrest from words the thoughts that underlie them. Only linguist regards the views of historic Indian thinkers as so many fossils and from his viewpoint any interpretation which makes them alive and significant is dismissed as far-fetched and untrue. A philosopher, on the other hand, realizes the worthiness of the ancient Indian theories and treats them much less fossils but as species which are extremely persistent. It is the activity of creative logic to patch together the dispersed data, interpret for all of us the life span they harbour and so free the soul from the body. The historian must pay great focus on the logic of ideas, get inferences, suggest explanations and formulate ideas which would add some order into the shapeless mass of unrelated facts.
This appears to be an able self-defense again. However, as Richard Smet points out, it gives a free of charge range to 'creative reasoning' that troubles to mistake the primary activity of the historian, which is "to find the authentic relevance and aliveness of the old writings of their own historical context, rather than to creatively enforce upon them interpretations which show their relevance to us today. " Further, Smet rightly highlights that Radhakrishnan "presents us with the majority of what Sankar charya said but usually ends with what he wants him to have said. " Radhakrishnan's The Idea of Rabindranath Tagore in addition has received the same criticism that the non-expert cannot tell when Sankar charya's thought ends and Radhakrishnan's starts. Finally, Radhakrishnan's anxiousness for reinterpretation seems to have hindered his seek out Sankar charya's own intelligibility.
4. 1. 4 Intuition as the Basis of Knowledge
Another significant point in regards to to Radhakrishnan's strategy is his idea on intuitive knowledge over and above medical knowledge. During his time, especially in 1920's and 1930's, intellect verses intuition was a substantial subject matter in the idea of religion. Although some believed that knowledge comes through reasoning and scientific rationalism, some others believed that it comes through intuition. However, for Radhakrishnan knowledge is through intuition. This differs from conceptual knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is immediate knowledge that results from a romantic fusion of mind with truth. "I know it, for Personally i think it" is the basic idea of such intuitive knowledge.
The positive aspect of the intuitive knowledge is it's subjective learning. As Patyaiying places it, "the object known here is seen much less an object outside the self, but as a part of the do it yourself. " Prominent European philosophers like Bergson, Croce and Bradley were and only such intuitive knowledge in addition to intellect. For example, Bradley claims
that all intellectual examination falsifies truth, since it breaks up its unity into something of separate conditions and relations. Ordinary thought distinguishes that from what, where the former refers to the truth and the second option to its abstract identity. The unified composition of actuality cannot therefore be unveiled in such thought. It could be captured more in sense, the bigger faculty, in which 'thought, sense and volition are combined into a whole.
The negative side of intuitive knowledge is about the validity of such knowledge that originates from sense. Intuitive knowledge seems to be more experiential centered alternatively than reason based mostly. "I understand it, because Personally i think it. " But, how do we test that sense and know whether it is right or wrong. Further, intuitive knowledge is experience structured which is a mystical spirituality. Whatever is mystical cannot be demonstrated logically.
For this, Radhakrishnan argues that it is incorrect to logically demonstrate someone's intuitive knowledge. Especially in the advaitic understanding, he asks, "you can contest the actual fact of another's possessing knowledge of Brahman, vouched as it is by his heart's convictions?" However, this is again another able security of his procedure and an episode on knowledge based on reasoning. Indeed, it is fair that we justify our knowledge on something with solid reasons.
Therefore, the above mentioned observations on philosophical affects of Radhakrishnan, his technique, his use of Sankar charya's writings and his emphasis on the intuitive knowledge, naturally explain significant constraints in Radhakrishnan's method of the thought of sarvamukti. Now, why don't we see how these restrictions make ample influence on his viewpoint of sarvamukti in the following discussion.
The issue of liberation can be viewed from two perspectives: from the point of view of God's mother nature and His marriage to humanity and from the point of view of man's own essential nature. According to Suryanarayana Sastri, it's the former one which is being dominating in Radhakrishnan's notion of sarvamukti. For Radhakrishnan, there are three significant propositions. First, reality is Brahman. Second, the entire world is Brahman. Third, tman is Brahman. These three propositions are securely based on the idea of Brahman as the sole reality, which is undoubtedly the foundation of advaita.
However, a crucial study of Radhakrishnan's notion of sarvamukti in the light of advaita explains to that it's a mere logical construction based on philosophical assumptions and implications. Further, it has no direct textual basis from the triple text messages. Rather, the word and the particular idea is a mere implication from the belief that all is Brahman and tman is Brahman. For this, the following discourse on several issues on sarvamukti offers sufficient support.
4. 2. 1 Brahman, World and 'tman'
For Radhakrishnan, reality is One. But that reality is dual in nature. That's nirguna Brahman and saguna Brahman. He believes that the nirguna Brahman becomes God in various functions of creation, preservation and excellence. From the original advaitic point of view, Brahman is nirguna and any knowledge of Brahman as saguna is ignorance. Radhakrishnan deviates his view from advaita because he intends to balance the idea of God as Absolute with the thought of God as personal. This is very much clear in some situations where he makes variation between the 'appearance' and 'actuality' similarly and on the other hand affirming that actuality is only One.
Pointing to the above observation, Mookarjee says that Radhakrishnan in Eastern Religions and American Thought emphasized the oneness of the reality similarly (in page 94) as well as the difference between appearance and truth on the other palm (in page 298). Therefore, the question here is if the appearance is not the same as reality? If one has to accept the differentiation then there is absolutely no point of arguing for Oneness.
Further, Radhakrishnan once in a while confesses that he was led by a low profile divine hand. It is unclear whether that hands he mentions is his connection with an individual god like Siva or Krishna or even Brahman or the hands of his members of the family who have became aware Brahman. But, that implies a god with some capabilities and for that reason can be categorized into lower Brahman in advaita understanding. However, Radhakrishnan contends for Oneness of the reality because of his advaitic hermeneutic. In contrary, he also contends for duality because of his view towards the looks of the world as real.
Generally, advaita teaches that world is unreal. Sankar charya is often characterized as considering the world and life in it illusory. Affirming this Paul Deussen creates, "Sankar charya's teaching includes the identification of the soul with Brahman, and denies all plurality, and therefore the validity of the ideas of the creation and existence of the world" In the same way M. Hiriyanna details that for Sankar charya "Brahman is the only real reality, and it seems both as the objective universe so that the individual subject. The former is an illusory manifestation of Brahman, as the last mentioned is Brahman itself appearing under the limits which form part of that illusory world. "
According to Surendranath Dasgupta, "The Upanisads placed that actuality or real truth was one, and there was "no many" everywhere, and Sankara described it by adding that the "many" was simply an illusion, and therefore did not exist the truth is and was bound to disappear when the reality was known. the world-appearance is maya. This is exactly what Sankara emphasizes in expounding his constructive system of the Upanisad doctrine. " Similarly T. M. P. Mahadevan remarks "Sankara puts the entire school of thought of Advaita in two a verse where he says: Brahman is real: the earth is an illusory appearance; the individual soul (jiva) is Brahman alone, not other. The non-duality of Brahman, the non-reality of the world, and the non-difference of the soul from Brahman - these constitute the teaching of advaita. "
While almost all of the scholars view that for advaita and especially for Sankar charya the planet is a mere illusion, Radhakrishnan contends that such view of Sankar charya is "most undesired and a mockery of the Oneness and Absoluteness of Brahman. " Radhakrishnan being one among the few interpreters of Sankar charya admits the difficulty in interpreting his view of my. However, he attempted to formulate Sankar charya's idea of my so that he could save the globe and present it a real meaning. This is because he strongly thought that life on earth is meaningful and for that reason wanted to protect the reality of the world along start of Brahman.
For this, Radhakrishnan did not even hesitate to criticize Sankar charya for viewing the entire world as my. He says, "the anxiety to be devoted so far as possible to both Buddhism and Vedantism is apparently the reason of much of the inconsistency of Samkara's philosophy. " He also says that Sankar charya has
incorporated certain Buddhistic elements like the doctrine of maya and monasticism into the Vedanta philosophy. It is held that, within an endeavour to protect the continuity of thought, he attempted to incorporate logically incompatible ideas. However creditable this may be to the elasticity of akara's brain or his soul of genuine toleration, it cannot but have an impact on the reasonable rigour of his thought; and the theory of my assists as a cloak to cover the interior rifts of his system.
Advaita firmly demonstrates to that Brahman is the sole reality and the rest is unreal. However, Radhakrishnan assumed it as illogical since when the truth of Brahman is realized as the complete it includes the reality of the world as well. That means, Brahman includes the world's fact. Therefore, Radhakrishnan's advaita is in line with Upanisadic conception of Brahman. However, such view is incompatible because it implies a monistic conception of deity and thus falling again into the principles like personal God, lower Brahman and unrealized state.
Now, does that mean Radhakrishnan's understanding of maya has primary errors in its interpretation? To answer this question requires another complete research study. Nevertheless, one thing is clear that Radhakrishnan has intended to stir Hindu hearts for positive honest action in the secular world. He also intends to respond to the European criticism that Indian religions are world-negating and life-denying. In this he has definitely succeeded.
In addition to that, he presumed that individual is a unique in this world. Man, for him, is the inheritor of the spark of the divine. He assumed that great words, tat tvam asi (that thou artwork) instructs that man has the supreme heart within him. Therefore, world-negation for Radhakrishnan implied meaninglessness of individuals life and denying the importance of man getting the divine nature. Due to ignorance individual fails to realize the supreme within. This is again compatible with the teaching of advaita that deliverance from ignorance will lead a person to understand the Supreme within. But, Radhakrishnan takes a step of progress and argues that ultimate liberation requires the liberation of most. However, I am going to claim in the later areas that in advaita liberation is immediate and Radhakrishnan with other motives possessed argued for sarvamukti.
4. 2. 2 Liberation: An Immediate Identification with Brahman
The major downside in Radhakrishnan's sarvamukti ideology is his understanding that the released soul will not attain immediate id with Brahman, somewhat attains some kind of Isvarahood which indicates possession of Isvara's power and characteristics. When all the souls attain Isvarahood then your final release occurs, the merging of all souls in Brahman. For this, he relied on Sankar charya's Brahmastra 3. 3. 32 which gives the exemplory case of the Apantartamas, Bhgu and Narada doing work for the keeping of the world; and Appayya Dkita's view that whenever an individual heart and soul is liberated it only attains communion with Isvara and not union with Brahman.
However, in advaita, liberation is comprehended as immediate knowledge with Brahman. Such knowledge is indeed not appropriate for Isvarahood. In fact, any personal information with Isvarahood is not really a true liberation in advaita. Isvara is God with features and this is not the thought of Brahman in advaita. In addition, Sankar charya's point in regards to to Apantartamas, Bhgu and Narada does not imply sarvamukti at all. Further, Appayya Dkita's viewpoint is limited to ekeshwaravada and does not have any proper basis for advaita. Let us see both of these cases at length.
4. 2. 2. 1 Sankar charya's Commentary on Brahmastra 3. 3. 32
Brahmastra 3. 3. 32 reads:
This means, "Those people who have a mission to fulfill continue in the corporeal point out so long as the mission wants it. " Sankar charya taught that knowledge is really the only means for liberation and such knowledge was of nirguna Brahman. Any understanding of the saguna Brahman is less knowledge and is also not the final liberation. It is merely a journey after death merely to receive some good. For the kids rebirth is unavoidable. But, those individuals of the knowledge of nirguna Brahman travel no more because they have got realized their identification with the Brahman and all beings. They do not create new karma because they may have the highest knowledge and then for them there is absolutely no rebirth. It is their final incarnation that was the result of the prior life karma. Their physical death is the end of their journey and they are not reborn.
Regarding this teaching of Sankar charya, one of his opponents got a problem. Puranas evidently mention about some enlightened souls like Apantartamas and others who are reborn again. For Sankar charya's opponent, therefore that regardless of having the understanding of nirguna Brahman rebirth is carrying on. For example, Apantartamas was a historical seer who educated Vedas. Corresponding to Mahabharata, Vishnu has guided him to use birth at the junction of the Dwapara and Kali Yugas as Krishna Dwaipayana with the goal of bringing about the well-being of the world by promoting Vedas. Basing on Sankar charya's commentary on the Muaka Upanisad and Brahmastra it is believed that this Apantartamas was again reborn as Vyasa to once again separate and systematize the Vedas because of its propagation. This definitely means that rebirth you can do for some those who have knowledge of nirguna Brahman.
Responding to this, Sankar charya says that Apantartamas while others, though being liberated ones, continue to take rebirth because they're given the objective (adhikram memory) of keeping the earth (lokasthitihetuvadhikreu) by propagating the Vedas (vedapravartandiu). However, he will not specifically explain about what the objective is, but suggests that it is the best Lord (paramesvara) who codes it. Further he provides,
these same realized souls fulfil this objective at the same time that they await their prrabdha karma to run its course. Being liberated, no longer identified with their upadhis, their action will not ensnare them in the web of binding cause and impact, as opposed to the actions of these who are not liberated. When their mission has ended and their prrabdha karma has go out, these liberated souls cast off their physiques once and for all. But the essential liberation acquired already been realized prior to the death of the body. "That thou art work" is never to be construed as "That thou will be only after death. "
Therefore, on commenting on Brahmastra 3. 3. 32, Sankar charya didn't say that those people who had attained the knowledge of Brahman will have personality with the saguna Brahman and work for the salvation of others. Alternatively, he stresses that a lot of people with the purpose of propagating the Vedas and under the divine fee take birth nowadays. But, Radhakrishnan has inappropriately used this commentary of Sankar charya and reinterpreted it for growing his view that released souls will attain Iswarahood and work for the salvation of others and don't attain personal information with Brahman immediately.
Swami Sivananda declares that ordinarily an individual will not reborn after attaining understanding of Brahman unless there's a divine objective. Such individuals might take one or more births till they fulfill their mission. That mission is to promulgate the Vedas. Swami Dharmananda commentary that it's a misconception of Radhakrishnan that liberation is not immediate. Advaita teaching cannot recognize such view. He says,
I am liberated. My liberation is not depending on your liberation. I've realized the reality tat tvam asi. I am indeed Brahman. If you think I am talking with you, it is your ignorance. To me, you are only an illusion. Being Brahman I continue steadily to live to serve others in order that they realize the truth ayam tm brahma. WHENEVER I live this body, my trip ends. Indeed I am Brahman.
Further, if ultimate liberation of the individual is possible only when universal liberation takes place then what would be the precise state of these those who have became aware Brahman and passed away literally? For Radhakrishnan, those souls do not attain ultimate liberation, somewhat these are reborn. If so, pressing the question further, is there a probability that those individuals to really have the same realized state in that new birth? Often, as Mahadevan and Saroja questions, will that each becomes ignorant within the next cosmic order? If yes, then this would imply the infinite, that is Brahman, has the capacity to become an imperfect being anticipated to Supreme flexibility, because that each is none other than Brahman itself. However, as Mahadevan and Saroja points out, Radhakrishnan does not have any response because of this.
4. 2. 2. 2 Appayya Dkita's View of 'Iwarahood'
The view that an individual liberated heart and soul attains communion with Iswara rather than union with Brahman originated by Appayya Dkita in many of his works, especially Siddhntaleasangraha and Sivdvaitaniraya. Basing on Sankar charya's commentary on Brahmastra and general philosophical grounds, he tries to dispute that the meditation upon nirguna Brahman ends in personality with Iswara rather than immediately with nirguna Brahman. Suryanarayana Sastri summarizes Appayya Dkita's view as
Jivas are reflections of Isvara. When any one jiva is released, that reflection becomes one with prototype. But until all mirrors (that is to say, nesciences) are ruined, there will be the likelihood of representation; the released heart and soul will still be the prototype, not that which is above prototype and reflection; but when all nesciences are damaged there is no further opportunity of reflection and there is merger in Pure Brahman.
Appayya Dkita's view is without a doubt no orthodox logic of advaita. In fact, such view reduces itself to ekeshwaravada. Pointing to the, Srinivasiengar rightly and critically argues,
Appaiyya's siddhnta reduces itself eventually to kshwaravda, for the distinction between jva and Iwara is not radical or fundamental, and with increasing extension, the jva loses its jivahood and becomes Iwara. And since a multiplicity of Iwaras is inconceivable, there would stay only one Iwara as the real alongside of Brahman.
In addition compared to that, such Iwarahood is not concealed in the jva because Iwarahood signifies sarvajnatwa (omniscience). Whenever a jva attains the knowledge of Brahman such vrti-jnna is not appropriate for the avidya of that individual jva. But, the swarpa jnna (pure consciousness) or chinmtram of Brahman is perhaps compatible with avidya because Brahman is both the raya (locus) and the viaya (object) of avidya. Therefore, it is a contradiction to say that a jva, though released from ignorance, hasn't attained id with Brahman.
Further, Appayya Dkita's beliefs implies a double varana (the veil that hides the reality about Brahman). This is because he presupposes that jva suffers under two kinds of varana. They will be the varana by means of which Iwarahood is covered in the jva and this by virtue of which the Brahmanhood is concealed. That means when an individual is enlightened the varana that is covering the Iwarahood comes off. But this Iwarahood is itself another varana since it is covering the Brahmanhood. For Radhakrishnan, only when all souls attain Iwarahood then sarvamukti occurs.
However, such notion of double varana is first of all does not have any basis in virtually any of the advaitic writings. In fact, such ideology suggests Iwarahood as another status of ignorance. Finally, Sankar charya's Brahmastra 3. 3. 39 and 4. 3. 14 obviously mentions that any realization of Brahman as Iwara is less Brahman realization, a Brahman with traits which is not appropriate for advaita. Therefore, Radhakrishnan's use of Appayya Dkita's is improper for the thought of sarvamukti.