CHAPTER TWO

SANKARA’S PHILOSOPHY : BRAHMAN — JlVA-

JAGAT— LEVELS OF REALITY

Sankara’s philosophy is properly termed as “Axiological

Monism” “Monism of the Good” and “Creative Monism” etc.
By characterizing Sankara’s Advaitavada as axiological
monism it is to equate Brahman with the highest value. The
ultimate reality, which is Brahman, is not an “existent” or a
“subsistent”, it is the “summun bonum”. The concepts of
“reality” and “existence” are not identical, he contends.
Existence is to be equated with position in space and time.
When Brahman is described as "sat no existential
predication is made; sat means, represents a non-existent
form of objectivity, it is also an absolute consciousness (cit),
and infinite bliss (ananda). When Sankara says that Brahman
is nirguna (without attributes), he does not mean that it is
characterless; all that he means is that in Brahman essence
cannot be distinguished from existence.

The expression “Monism of the Good” means the same

as “Axiological Monism”. In identifying Brahman, Atman,
Nihsreyasa, Moksa and Ananda. Sankara reduces the

39
problem of realization of the summun bonum of the highest
Good, of oneness with Brahman, which, in short, is the
problem of religion, to the problem of knowing the true
nature of the Atman, which is the essence of the individual
and the universe. The Atman, which is the central topic of
r

Sankara’s philosophy, is the Absolute Good, the realization

of which results in the enjoyment of infinitely blissful and
eternally real existence.
r

Before we commence our study of Sankara proper, we

prefer to focus on a few points of agreement between
Sankara and Gaudapada, and also some occasions where the
language of Sankara is remarkably similar to be found in the
Gaudapadakarika. Both these points suggest that Sankara
was following Gaudapada more closely than might be
supposed to and we did no more than count the number of
references to Gaudapada in the Brahmasutrabhasya.

Firstly, Sankara frequently uses the analogy of space,

comparing the space within a pot and that outside it with the
apparent difference and the ultimate non-difference between
the individual soul and Brahman. Gaudapada elaborated this
analogy to bring out various aspects of the nature of the
r

individual soul and its relation to the absolute self. Sankara

40
also occasionally uses the analogy of the rope and the snake
which we again see in the karika-s of Gaudapada, and he
seems to have the Gaudapadakarika in mind when he
employs this illustration in the context of citing karika (1.16)
in the Brahmasutrabhasya.

Secondly, Sankara explicitly says that the states of

waking, dream and deep sleep are mithya (false /
undetermined), and in these statements he exhibits a
unanimous view with Gaudapada. In Brahmasutrabhasya
2.1.9, before he refers to karika (1.16), he says: ‘The single
invariable witness of the three states is not touched by the
three states which are variable in relation to one another.

Evam avasthatrayasaksi-eko-avyabhicari, avasthatrayena

vyabhicarina na samsprsyate.

And he goes on to say:

For this is a case of mdya that the supreme self appears

as the self of the three states. It is comparable to a rope
appearing as a snake etc.
Mayamatram hi etatparamatmanah
avasthatrayatmana-avabhasanam rajjva,
iva sarpadibhavena iti.

41
In the Upadesasahasri, Sankara says:

— ‘One should abandon this trend of waking, dream and

their seed called deep sleep which consists of darkness, as
non-existent [in the self] for the reason that they mutually
exclude each other.’
“Jagratsvapnau tayoh vijarh susptakhyarh tamobhyam
Anyonyasmin asattvatcca nastati etad trayam tyajet.”

— Upadesasahasri (16/18)

Transmigratory existence consists of waking and dream.

Their root is deep sleep consisting of Ignorance. No one of
these states has a real existence, because each goes out of
existence when another remains in it. One should, therefore,
give up all these three states. There are a number of other
such instances concerning the unreality (mithydtva) of the
three states where he shows an identity of perspective to that
of Gaudapada. The reason which Sankara gives for their
unreality, that “they mutually exclude each other” (literally,
they mutually do not exist in each other”) relies upon the
same fundamental principle that Gaudapada relied upon to
demonstrate “non-origination” namely that what is truly real
must be completely unchanging, it must be invariable, and

42
hence its being must not stand negated, which is what would
happen if it underwent any intrinsic alteration.

Tatha avikriyarupatvat na avasthantaramatmanah

Avasthantaravattve hi nasah asya syanna samsayah

— Upadesasahasri, 16/38.

Similarly, the self has no change of states as it is of a

changeless nature. It would, no doubt, be destructible if It
underwent any change. (Upadesasahasri, 16/38). The states
of waking, dreaming and deep sleep are variable
(vyabhicari), they “mutually exclude each other”, because
when one state is present it negates the presence of the
others. Changeability is the reason for the unreality of the
three states and this is the same reason Gaudapada put
forward in karika, 2.6.
Adavante ca yatrasti vartamane api tattatha
Vitathaih sadrsah santah avitathd iva laksitah

“What does not exist at the beginning and at the end, likewise
[does not exist] even in the present.”

With regard to another matter, Sankara’s writings

corroborate the view where Gaudapada by ‘Asparsayoga ’
does not refer to a type of yogic practice, but it denotes

43
the immediate knowledge that the self is nothing other
than pure Awareness, and that such Awareness is
intrinsically “untouched” by anything that exists as its
apparent object.
Asparsayogo vai nama durdarsah sarvayogibhih
Yogino vibhyati hi asmat bhaye bhayadarsinah

— Gaudapadakarika, III. 39.

— ‘This Yoga, which is not in touch with anything, is hard to

be attained by all Yogis (in general). The Yogis are afraid of
it, for they see fear in it where there is really fearlessness.’
(Gaudapadakarika, IE. 39)
Asparsayogo vai nama sarvasattvasukho hitah
Avivadah aviruddhasca desitah tam namamyaharh
— Gaudapadakarika, IV. 2.

— ‘I salute this Yoga known as the Asparsa (i.e. free from all
touch which implies duality), taught through the scripture —
the Yoga which promotes the happiness of all beings and
conduces to the well-being of all and which is free from strife
and contradictions’. —Gaudapadakarika, IV.2.

Sankara makes this clear when he says in the

Upadesasahasrv.

44
 Buddhyarudam sada sarvai sahamkarta ca saksmah
Tasmat sarvavabhaso jnah kincidapi asprsan sada.

— UpadesasahasrT 18/94.

— ‘Everything in the intellect, together with the ego-sense is

always [a qualifying attribute] of the witness. Therefore
Awareness illumines everything, while always touching
nothing’ (Kincidapi-asparsam sada)

There are numerous instances where Sankara uses the

word “asparsa” to refer to the very nature of the Atman. All
these instances indicate to strength the conclusion that they
term “Asparsa” ought not to be understood as referring to
some transic state, like the Yogic nirvikalpa samadhi, but
that it refers to the very nature of Bhutadosaih Sada. asprstam
sarvabhutasthamisvaram nilarh vyomam yatha valo dustam
mam viksate jarah. — UpadesasahasrT, 9/5.

People look upon Me, the Lord residing in all beings and
always untouched by their defects, as tainted (with those
defects) like a boy who (erroneously) looks upon the sky as
blue. — UpadesasahasrT, 9/5/.
Asparsvatvat na me sprstirnajihvatvat rasajnata.
Nityavijnanarupasya, jhanajnane na me sada
—UpadesasahasrT ,13/5.

45
— Devoid of the organ of touch I have no act of touching;
and devoid of the tongue, I have no sensation of taste. I never
have knowledge or ignorance as I am of the nature of eternal
consciousness. — Upadesasahasn, 13/5.
“Asparsatvat adehatvdt naharh dahyo yatah sada
Tasmdt mithyabhimdnottham mrte putre mrtiryatha

—- Upadesasahan 17/164.

— As I am not touched by anything and do not possess a

body I am never susceptible of being burnt. Pain arises from
the wrong notion (due to a false identification with the body)
like the wrong notion of one being dead at the death of one’s
son. — Upadesasahasn, 18/164.
Asparsah api yatha sparsamacalah calanadi ca
Avivekat tathd duhkharh manasam catmariiksate.

— Upadesasahasn 18/164.

Just as due to indiscrimination touch and movement are felt

to be in the self which is devoid of them, so, mental pain is
also felt to be in It (owing to the same reason).
— Upadesasahasn 18/167.

46
There are also occasions where the language of Sankara is
remarkably similar to that found in Gaudapadakarika. Such
resemblances can be seen especially in the Upadesashan.

Janimajjhanavijheyam svapnajdnavadisyate
Nityam Nirvisayam janarh tasmat dvaitam no vidyate

— UpadesasahasrT, 9/7.

Objects that come into being and are capable of being made
the objects of knowledge are as unreal as those known in
dream. As duality has no (real) existence knowledge is
eternal and objectless.

In the UpadesasahasrT (9.7) Sankara says, “Awareness

is constant and without an object” (nityam nirvisayam
jnanam). This phrase resembles Gaudapada’s statement in
4.72.

“Consciousness is without an object constant” (cittain

nirvisyam nityam)
Cittaspanditamevedam grahyagrahakavad dvayam
Cittarh nirvisayam nityamasangam tena kirtitam.

— Gaudapadakarika, 4/72.

This perceived world of duality, characterised by the subject-

object relationship is verily an act of the mind. The mind

47
again (from the standpoint of Reality) is without touch with
any object (as it is of the nature of Atman). Hence it is
declared to be eternal and unattached — Gaudapadakarika
uses the expression “ever shining” (.sakrdvibhata) in
(UpadesasahasrT, 10.1.).
Drsisvarupam gaganopamam pararh sakrdvibhatam
tvajamekarh aksaram
Alepakam sarvagatarh yadavyarh tadeva caharh satatam
vimuktaom.
—UpadesasahasrT, 10.1.

‘I am the supreme Brahman which is pure consciousness,

always clearly manifest, unborn, one only, imperishable,
unattached and all-pervading like the ether and non-dual. I
am, therefore, ever-free.’
— UpadesasahasrT, 10/1.

Gaudapada too has used the expression twice in 3.36 and

4.81.
Ajamanidramasvapnamakamarupakam
Sakrdvibhatam sarvajham nopacarah kathamcana

—Gaudapadakarika, 3.36.

48
—‘This Brahman is birthless, free from sleep and dream,
without name and form, ever-effulgent and omniscient.
Nothing has to be done in any way with respect to Brahman.’
— Gaudapadakarika, 3.36.
Ajamanidramasvapndm prabhatarh bhavati svayarn
Sakrdbhato hi evaisa dharmo dhatusvabhavatah

— Gaudapadakarika, 4.8.

— (Reality which is) free from birth, and (which is) free
from sleep and dream, reveals itself by itself. For, this
Dharma (i.e. Atman) is from its very nature'ever-luminous.

— Gaudapadakarika, 4.8.

The term (Sakrdvibhata) itself occurs in the Chandogya

Upanisad (8.4.2.).
Tasmadva evarh seturh tlrtva andhah san andho
bhavati viddhah san aviddho bhavati upatapl
San annupatapi bhavati tasmadva etam setum
Tlrtva api naktamaharevabhinispadyate
Sakrdvibhato hi evaisa brahmalokah //

— Chdndogyopanisad, 8.4.2.

Therefore, having reached this dam, he who is blind ceases to

be blind, he who is miserable ceases to be miserable, he who

49
is afflicted [with disease] ceases to be afflicted. Therefore,
having reached this dam, the night becomes day; for the
world of Brahman is lighted once for all (VIII, IV.2)
Chandogyopanisad.

“This world that is Brahman is surely ever shining”,

Sakrdvibhato hi-eva-esa brahmalokah). Sankara says in 10.4
(i

{UpadesasahasrT) “I am the Fourth, the continuous seeing,

non-dual {tunya eva-asmi sadadrg advayah) which
resembles Gaudapada’s expression in 1.12 “The Fourth is
always all seeing” {Turyarh tat sarvadrk sada).
Susuptajagrat svapnasca darsanam na me asti kincitsva
mieveha mohanam.
Svatasca tesarh paratah api asattvatah turiya evasam
sadadrgadvayah

-— UpadesasahasrT 10.4.

No perception whatever in waking, dream or deep sleep

belongs to Me but it is due to delusion. For these states have
no independent existence nor an existence depending on the
self. I am, therefore, the Fourth which is the seer of all the
three states and without a second.

— UpadesasahasrT, 19.4.

50
 Natmanam na parancaiva na satyam napi cantarh
Prdjnah kihcana samvetti, turyarii tatsarvadrk sada

— Gaudapadakarika, 1.12.

‘Prajna does not know anything of the self, or the non-self,

nor truth nor untruth. But Turiya is ever existent and ever all-
seeing.’
— Gaudapadakarika., 1.12.
r

Sankara too uses the expression “all seeing (san?adrk) on

three occasions, in 17.1,55 and 59.

Atma jheyah paro hi atmayasmat anyatnavidyate

Sarvajnah sarvadrk suddhah tasmai jneyatmane namah

— Upadesasahasri, 17.1.

‘The self is to be known. It is beyond everything knowledge

as there exists nothing else except It. I bow down to that
pure, all-knowing and omniscient One which is to be known’.

— Upadesasahasri, 17.1.

Apayodbhutihmabhirnityam dipyannaviryatha'
Sarvajnah sarvadrk suddhah sarvam janati sarvadd

— Upadesasahasri, 17.55.

51
‘Just as the sun illumines the world with its rays which are
free from growth and decay, so, the self always knows all
things in general and all particular things and is pure’.

— UpadesasahasrT, 17.55.
Ajah aham camarah amrtyuh ajarah abhaya eva ca
Sarvajnah sarvadrk suddhah iti buddho na jayate.

— UpadesasahasrT, 17.59.

— One is not bom again when one knows that one is unborn,
deathless, devoid of old age, free from fear, pure and
knowing all particular things and things in general.

—UpadesasahasrT, 17.59.

In 15.40 Sankara uses the expression, “having as its nature

the light of Awareness” (jnanalokasvabhavatah)

Which is reminiscent of Gaudapada’s expression in 3.35,

“having the light of Awareness all around (jndnalokarh
samantatah)
Svatupavyavadhanabhyam jhdnalokasvabhav'atah
Anyajhanapeksatvdtjhatarh caiva sadd maya

— UpadesasahasrT 15.40.

52
— Independent of every other knowledge, of the nature of
the light of Pure Consciousness and not distanced by
anything. Brahman, my own nature, is always known by me.

— Upadesasahasri, 15.40.
LTyate hi susupte tannigrhitam na liyate
Tadeva nirbhayarh Brahma jhanalokam samantatah

— Gaudapadakarika, 3.35.

As the mind is withdrawn at the time of deep sleep and so in

the case of the (veddntic) discipline, (therefore there is a
difference between the condition of the mind of a sleeper and
that of jnarit). That (mind of a /«<z/?z)becomes identical with
fearless Brahman whose all-round illusion is consciousness
alone. —Gaudapadakarika, 3.35.

Sankara uses the expression “the cessation of the phenomenal

world, non-dual” (prapancopasamahadvayah) in 17.7.1 and
Gaudapada uses the same expression in 2.35.

Neti neti adisastrebhyah prapancopasamah advayah

Avijhdtadisastracca naiva jheyo hi atah anyatha

— The self is non-dual (and left over) by the negation of the

universe according to the Sruti, ‘Not this, not this” It
r
should be known as described in the Sruti,

53
Unknown knower and never otherwise
— Upadesasahasri, 17.71.
Vitaragabhayakrodhaih munibhih vedaparagaih
Nirvikalpo hi ayarh drstah prapancopasamah advayah

By the wise, who are free from attachment, fear and anger
and who are well versed in the meaning of the Vedas, this
{Atman) has been verily realized as totally devoid of all
imagination (such as those of Prana etc.) free from
the illusion of the manifold and non-dual.(Eng. Tr.
Gaudapadakdrika, 2.35.)

Apart from these similarities of expression indicating as

they have an agreement of thought, there are other major
agreements, some of which were referred to preciously. Both
the thinkers regard sruti as an important causal instrument of
knowledging pramana) about Brahman. Modem scholarship
tends to see Gaudapada as belonging to the early part of the
sixth century C.E. and places Sankara in the earlier part of
the eighth century (C. 700-750) which is a revision of the
well-known dates, 788-820 CE, proposed by earlier
generation of scholars. If this is correct, the philosophical
conditions when the two men lived were different and so
their concerns as teachers of Advaita were naturally not the

54
same. At the time of Gaudapada early in the sixth century
C.E, Buddhism had reached the limits of its influence in
India and this influence is reflected in many of his karika-s
where he displayed close acquaintance with the prevalent
Buddhist thought of his time. By the time of Sankara, in the
early part of the 8 century, Buddhism has declined in
importance. Sankara perhaps did not have the same intimate
knowledge of Buddhism as did Gaudapada have, but
Buddhism was not Sankara’s major concern. He saw the
Mlmamsakas as his principal opponents, and one of his main
tasks was to establish against the followers of MTmamsa that
the Upanisads constitute an independent means of
knowledge, and they give the liberating knowledge of the
non-dual self; and that the knowledge they generate is
entirely independent of the performance of rites. In seeking
to understand Sankara’s life and thought, we should not
isolate him from his age. The historical figure Sankara is
definitely inseparable from the society in which he lived and
his works can only be understood in terms of the Indian
religio-cultural movements of the 7th and 8th centuries C.E. It
is during this period that Buddhism was fast declining and
that the Smarta-pauranika religious trend was emerging.

55
Bhakti and Tantra, abstract logic and polemical metaphysics,
new ways of devotion and social codes, were developing side
r

by side. It is against this background that Sankara presented,

in a quite unique manner, the perennial Advaita philosophy
of which he was the heir. The bulk of his writings became the
standard and authoritative non-dual interpretation of Vedanta.
Sankara never encouraged social obligation and eligibility for
r

pursuing the Vedantic studies. Sankara sought to clarify the

teachings of Vedanta such as, ‘pravrtti-dharmcC and ‘nivrtti
dharma . ‘Saguna Brahma and Nirguna Brahman ’,
‘vyavaharika and paramarthika \ etc. He also was successful
at bringing together jhana, karma, and bhakti, which were
burning issues in his time. His writings are the co-existence
of faith with reasonal and spiritual experience. Indeed, the
doctrine of the identity between the self and Brahman
(“Tattvamasi”, “Aham BrahmasmF etc.) necessitates faith in
Sruti, reasoning in accordance with Sruti, as well as personal
experience. Sankara makes use of a variety of hermeneutical
processes to interpret Sruti as well as to withdrawing with the
aspirant instinctive and philosophical prejudices, so as to
render personal experience of identity between ‘JTva and
Brahman’ (JTva-Brahmaikya) possible. The analysis of the

56
phenomenon of self-awareness is perhaps the most important
of all processes used throughout his writings. That is why
r _
Sankara’s non-dualistic theory is better termed as Atmavada.
In this regard he appeals to two basic principles, a) that the
subject can never become the object and b) that the real can
never be negated or contradicted (vadhita). It is on these
axiomatic principles that . he speaks of empirical
consciousness and existence as false, the unsublatable and
pure consciousness present in all beings, being the only
reality that ever was, is and will be.

The Upanisadic texts also are as follows:-

“Tilesu tailarh dadhimva sarpi
rdpah srotahsvaramsu cagnih .
Evamatmani grhyate asau
satyenainam tapasa yah anupasyati, 1.15.
Sarvavyapinamatmanarh ksire sarpirivarpitam
Atmavidyatapomulam tadbrahmopanisatparam.
Tadbrahmopanisatparamiti, 1.16.
— Svetasvatara Upanisad.

As oil is (found) in sesamum, clarified butter (ghee) in curd,

water in rivers (underground) and fire in the wood, similarly
this self is realised in oneself by him who sees this One

57
through truth and concentration (1.15.) He sees the self —
which, like clarified butter inherent in milk is all-pervasive
and which is the source of self-knowledge and concentration
— as that Brahman on which is established the highest good.
r

(1.16. Svetasvetara Upanisad).

To do proper justice to Sankara’s philosophy it will be

more appropriate to entitle his system as ‘Atmavada’, rather
than ‘Advaitavada ’ (unqualified monism).

There are so many examples from Sratis in support of his

Atmavada. Let us cite a few of them.
Yastu sarvani bhutani atmani evanupasyati
Sarvabhutesu catmdnarh tato na vijugupsate.

The wise man beholds all beings in the self, and the self in all
beings; for that reason he does not hate anyone.

— Isopanisad, mantra, 6.

Yasmin sarvani bhutani atmaivabhudvijanatah

Tatra ko mohah kah soka ekatvamanupasyatah

— To the seer, all things have verily become the self: what
delusion, what sorrow, can there be for whom who beholds
that oneness?
— Isopanisad, mantra, 7.

58
 r

There are varieties of supportive Srutis in

Brhadaranyakopanisad also

Atmanam ced vijamyadayamsmitTpurusah

Kiomicchan kasya kamaya sariramanusanjvaret

— “If a man knows the self as I am this, then desiring what

and for whose sake will he suffer in the wake of the body?

— Brhadaranyakopanisad\ 4.4.12.

Yasyanivittah pratibuddha atma

asmin sarhdehye gahane pravistah
Sa visvakr sa hi sarvasya karta
Tasya lokah sa u loka eva.

— Whoever has realized and intimately known the self,

which has entered this perilous and perplexing place (the
body), is the maker of the Universe; for he is the maker of all.
[All] is his Self, and he, again, is indeed the Self of all.

— Brhadaranyakopanisad, 4.4.13.

Yadaitamanupasyati atmanam devamahjasa

Isanarh bhutabhayasya na tato vijugupsate

— ‘When a person following [the instructions of a teacher]

directly realizes the effulgent Lord as identical with his own

59
self, he no longer blames anybody, for he sees all as his self,
and for that reason whom should he blame?’

— Brhadaranyakopanisad, 4.4.15.
r __
Sankara’s Atmavada is enunciated perfectly fully in the
r

following Sruti of Brhadaranyakopanisad where the exact

path towards liberation is advised.
“Ekadhaivanudrastavyametadapramayam dhruvam
Virajah para akasadaja atma mahan dhruvah

—‘Unknowable and constant, It should be realized in one

form only. The self is free from taint, beyond the akasa,
birthless, infinite and unchanging.’

—Brhadaranyakopanisad, 4.4.20.

From the amount of criticisms levelled against Sankara

and his school, it becomes clear that Sankara and his school,
it becomes clear that Sankara was a person of great charisma
and authority besides the fact that he taught at a turning point
of Indian religio-philosophical history. It is evident from his
own writings he embraced the Vedic tradition while being a
constructive religious reformer. Transparency of
philosophical commitment as well as ardent devotion is
manifest in his writings. During his short life span (tradition

60
holds that he lived for a mere 32 years), Sankara is said to
have travelled the length and breadth of the country to give a
new momentum to Vedantic Orthodoxy, (sanatana dharma)
threatened, on the one hand, by the tradition of Buddhism,
and by the Mimamsakas on the other

In fact, Gaudapada questioned the existence of a

distinct Buddhist ideology lying beyond the pale of the
Upanisads, and attempted a reconciliation between the
Upanisads and Buddhism. After Gaudapada it was Acarya
Sankara who tried to reconstruct Advaita with the help of
logic and scriptures. He argued that Buddhism was opposed
to both scriptures and reason and that thus, it was unreliable
as soteriological scheme. In his commentary on the first verse
r

of the fourth chapter of the Mandukyakarika, Sankara

interprets ‘dvipadam varanC as Visnu although it would have
been more appropriate to gloss it as Buddha

“Jnanena akasakalpena dharman yah gaganopaman.

Jneyabhinnena sambuddhastam vande dvipadam varam” On
this Sankarabhasya goes as:

“. . . jneyaih dharmaih atmabhih abhinnam agnyumavat

Savitrprakasavacca yat jnanarh, tena Jneyabhinnena jhanena
akasakalpena jheydtmasvarupavyatiriktena gaganopaman

61
dharman yah sambuddhah sambuddhavan nityameva Isvari
yo nardyanakhyah, tam vande abhivadaye, dvipadam vararh
dvipadopalaksiotanam purusanam vararh pradhanarh
purusottamam ityabhiprdyah}
r

Sankara’s tradition is Upanisadic as he himself reminds us

many times in his Bhasya: “Asmakam tu a upanisdam
r

darsanam”. In his Mandukyakarika Bhasya Sankara glosses

the word advaita as “advaitam caturtham manyante sa atmd
sa vijneyah” In his siddhantabindu Madhusudana Sarasvati
defines Advaita as “nasti dvaitam yatraHe feels that to
counter the Madhyamikas who also talk of a non-dualistic
entity called “sunya”, it is necessary to use “yatra” to make
clear that the locus (yatra) that is Brahman, is free from
duality. However, there is no need for a substratum in
Madhyamika system. In Advaita Vedanta the definition of
advaita is sensibly different since the word “yatra” indicates
a locus that is Brahman. The mere use of words like “eka” or
“aikya” cannot suffice to indicate Vedantic non-dualism
since a number of Vaisnava schools speak of the supreme
reality as eka i.e. visnu being the only reality. Hence, the

1 Sahkarabhasya, on “Mandukyopanisad”, sutra 116.1. edited by

Pandit Durgacaran Samkhya Vedantatirtha, page 188, published by
Sanskrita Pustak Bhandar, third edition, July 1977.

62
word Advaita seems to be more which does not accept any
duality in its understanding of the ultimate reality.
r
Writings of Sankara:
The tradition of Advaita refers to Sankara as the Bhasyakara
or commentator on the authoritative texts of the Vedanta.
The latter stands on three canons (prasthanas) i.e., the
Upanisads (sruti-prasthana), the Brahmasutras (Nyaya-
prasthana), and the Bhagvadgita (smrtiprasthma). The
Brahmasutra-s summarize the teachings of the Upanisads in
the form of aphorisms. The teachings of the Upanisads are
lengthy and complex and this is one of the reasons why they
are explained in the Brahmasutra-s in the form of 555 2 short
aphorisms. Since the teachings of the Brahmasutras are
logically arranged, the work is also named Nyaya or Tarka-
prasthana. The Bhagvad-gita is a smrti-prasthana. For the
sake of clarity we may classify the works of Sankara into
three to gnosis (jhana) for he also recognized the important
function of devotion (bhakti) on the path to moksa. For
Sankara, knowledge was never antagonistic to devotion.
Besides, composing various hymns in praise of Gods and

2 Brahma-Sutras, Swami Vireswarananda, Advaita Ashrama

(Prublication Department), Kolkata, Ninth Impression, April 2005.

63
Goddesses of the Hindu pantheon, it is believed that Sankara
wrote treatises on the banks of holy rivers Gangastaka and
Yamunastaka, for the purpose of conveying the highest
teaching of the Upanisads to the common people. Sankara’s
literary output reveals that he strongly believed in theism.
Having said that, his philosophy places the ultimate principle
(Brahman) beyond theism. In fact, Sankara’s ultimate
teachings do not fit any category and it is rather trans-theistic
r

in nature. If theism has an important place in Sankara

Vedanta, it is not final. Sankara was the upholder of an
already existent tradition (.Evam sampradaya vido vadanti
asampradayavid sdsrajnopi tmavad upeksamyah.) So it is
r

without claiming any originality Sankara presented himself

as a spokesman for the Upanisadic tradition. However,
Sankara certainly shows originality in his analysis and
interpretations of certain ideas in the ‘prasthanatraya In
addition, to this very day, Sankara has been a veritable
authority for Advaitins and a source of inspiration for
Advaitins and non-Advaitins alike. According to Sankara,
man does not know his true nature of being and is thus
caught in empirical existence because of ignorance (avidya)
whose outcome is superimposition (adhyasa). If ignorance is

64
responsible for experiencing samsara, knowledge alone can
remedy it. Knowledge, according to Sankara, is realization of
Brahma (Brahma-saksakara). ‘Bhidyate hrdayagranthih
chidyante sarvasarhsyah kslyante casya karmane tasmin
drste paravare ’—

The fetters of the heart are broken, all doubts are

resolved, and all works cease to bear fruit, when He is beheld
who is both high and low — Mundakopanisad, II. ii.8.

Yet since Brahman is ever existent and always attained,

liberation can only mean the attainment of the already
attained (praptyasya prapti). This is solely possible through
r

the removal of ignorance. In Sankara Vedanta, man’s only

predicament is that he is unaware that his own self is
Brahman (svarupasthiti,. that is, advaita bhava). It is
r
important to note that if Sankara holds that the vyavaharika
level is false (;mithya), not ficticious, this level also bears
some value. That which has a lower value points to that
which has a higher one, and thus apara-vidya is thought to
pave the way for a higher knowledge (para-vidya). To
Sankara the absolute truth is of the highest value, it is the
supreme reality. Taking over the torch (of enlightment) from
his predecessors, specially Gandapadacarya Sankara-

65
bhagavatpada moved about in all directions, spreading and
establishing the ‘absolutist’ doctrine of the ‘Upanisads’ and
the ‘Brahma-sutra’ through his unprecedented commentaries
on the Vedantic texts (namely, the Brahma-sutra, the
BhagavagTta and Upanisads) and his extraordinary debate
with the contemporary ‘pundits’ who were opposed to the
right doctrine of perceiving everything as the unity of self,.
“atmaikatva’’
r •

According to Sankara, reason never occupied the

premier position, it value was considered only secondary,
only so far as it helped one to the right understanding of the
revealed Scriptures, the Upanisads. The ultimate Truth
cannot be known by reason alone. What debater shows to be
reasonable a more expert debater can show to be false, and
what he shows to be right can again be proved to be false by
another debater. So there is no final certainty at which one
can arrive by logic and argument alone The Ultimate Truth
can thus only be found in the Upanisads; .— reason,
discrimination and judgement are all to be used only with a
view to discovering the real purport of the Upanisads.

Sankara is undoubtedly the greatest exponent and

consolidator of Advaita. Because it is frequently called the

66
‘Advaita of Sankara’, this leads to a misunderstanding and
one is likely to assume that Sankara was the founder or
originator of Advaita. Such an impression is false, although
there is no doubt that Sankara was the greatest expounder of
Advaita. Intrinsically speaking, Sankara’s theory should be
termed as ‘Atmavada’. To reveal the self is the ‘be-all and
end-all’ of Advaita. To realize that one is the self, one must
make an enquiry into nature of the self, the content of the
notion T. The self is not a hypothetical postulate. It is the
most immediate, direct, and certain perception of all. To
reveal the self is the ‘be-all and end-all’ of Advaita. This
experience, Sankara further claims, is within our reach. The
self, which is consciousness, is ever free and never bound. It
is the sole Reality. However, seemingly the formless becomes
embodied. Thus, the basic problem is to answer how it is
possible for the self, which is essentially different from
r

everything, gets involved in the things of the world. Sankara

stated the problem in the following words,
Yusmadasmat-prayayagocarayoh visaya-visayinoh
tamah prakasavdviruddhasvabhavayoh itaretara
bhavdnupapattau siddhayarh taddharmanamapi
sutaramitaretarabhavanupapattirityatah
asmatpratyayagocare visayini cidatmake

67
 yusmatpratyayagocarasya visayasya taddharma
nark adhyasastadviparyayena visyinah-
taddharmanamca visaye adhyasah mithyeti
bhavitum yuktam. Tathapi anyonyasmin
anyonyatmakatam anyonyadharmamscadhyasya
itaretaravivekena atyantaviviktayoh dharma-
dharminoh mithyajndnanimittah satyanrte
mithuriikrtyahamiham mamedamiti naisargikah
ayam lokavyavaharah. — Adhydsabhasya, p. 14.

— that is to say, — it is a matter not requiring any proof that

the object and the subject which are signified by the terms
yuumad (not-self) and asmad (self) which are opposed to
each other like light and darkness, cannot be identified. In the
same way, their respective attributes also cannot be
identified. Hence, it follows that it is wrong to superimpose
upon the subject, which is of the nature of consciousness and
which is referred to as ‘asmad’, the object which is spoken
of as ‘yusmad\ and the attributes of the object; it is also
wTong to superimpose the subject and the attributes of the
subject on the object. In spite of this, it is quite natural, owing
to wrong knowledge, not to distinguish the two entities and
their respective attributes ... and carry on the worldly life by

3 Vedantadarsana, Vol.. I, edited by Swami Visvarupananda,

publishedby Udbodhana Karyalay, Calcutta, Second Edition
(Revised), August 1993.

68
saying, That I am’ and That is mine’ The method that
Sai'kara proposes consists of a rigorous enquiry into the self
as well as an enquiry into the world.

Again, Sankara says, the self within is one; two inward

selves are not possible. But owing to its limiting adjunct, the
one self is practically treated as if it were two, just as a
distinction is made between the space of a jar and universal
space. Hence, there is a scope for scriptural texts which set
forth the distinction between the knower and the known, for
perception and other means of knowledge, for the experience
of the empirical, and for scripture which contains injunctions
and prohibitions. Thus the scriptural text, ‘where there is
duality, as it were, there one sees another’, declares that the
whole empirical world exists only in the state of ignorance;
while the text ‘But when the self only is all this, how should
one see another? (Br.U.. 4.5.15)4 declares that the empirical
world vanishes in the sphere of true knowledge. The
cornerstone of his philosophical system is the ‘key concept’
upon which the system revolves. The key concept of Advaita
is avidya / maya. Avidya is the linguistic device by which the
Advaitin explains how the non-dual Reality appears as

4 ‘ Yatra tu asya sarvam atmaivabhut tat kena karh pasyet ’?

69
multifarious. The reality of the self is their sole concern.
Brahman (self) is the be-all and end-all of Advaita. Advaita
never loses sight of its central doctrine that Brahman (self) is
real (sat), the world is mithya (false) and the individual is
non-different from Brahman (JTva-Brahmaikya).

The self-luminous Atman by the power of one’s own

Maya imagines in one self (all the objects that the subject
experiences within or without. The changeless Brahman
appears to undergo modification only on account of Maya
and not otherwise.

To put this in simple terms, from the perspective of the

sun, there is neither darkness nor concealment nor varying
shades of light. By definition, darkness cannot be where light
is. However, from the perspective of an individual upon the
Earth, there are both light and darkness and varying shades
in between and it is valid to label the sun as an enemy
of darkness. These are two seemingly contradictory
propositions, both equally valid, and true, once their
particular perspectives are correctly understood.
Nevertheless, what is valid from one perspective is not from
another. From the perspective of the sun, ‘all is light’. From
the perspective of the darkness there is relative light and

70
relative darkness and every shade in between. Sankara
acknowledges that distinctions appear distinctly individual at
the empirical level, all distinctions, while perceived, lose
their distinct individuality from the Absolute point of view.
That is, “All this is Brahman” is absolutely true while all this
is individually separate and distinct is relatively true.
However, this does not mean that there are two realities, two
truths. There is one Truth, One Reality, as seen from two
different perspectives. Sankara affirms that one perspective is
from the point of view of ignorance, while the other
perspective is from the point of view of wisdom. Sankara’s
truth is simple to state; Self-realization (Identity with
Brahman) is not something that can be achieved in words or
actions. It is not outside the seeker. Truly, he had nothing to
gain anew. It is only about realizing that which one already
is.
Sarhsaradhvani tapabhanukiranaprodbhutadahavyatha
Khinnanam jalakanksya marubhubi bhrantya
paribhramyatam. Atyasannasudhambudhim sukhakaram
Brahmadvayam darsaya tyesa Sankarbharati vijyate
nirvanasamdayinl — To translate into English it is as
follows:

71
— For those who are afflicted, in the way of the world, by
the burning pain due to the (scorching) sunshine of three fold
misery, and who through delusion wander about in a desert in
search of water for them, here is the triumphant message of
r

Sankara pointing out, within easy reach, the soothing ocean

of nectar, Brahman, the one without a second — to lead them
on to liberation. — Vivekacudamani, 580.

Brahman:
Saiikaracarya’s school is very appropriately called
“Kevaladvaita-vada” or more commonly “Advaitavada”.
Hence, as the name implies, according to this theory, there is
one and only one Reality, viz. Brahman or the Absolute. The
criterion of satta (existence) is “Avadhitatvam” (being
uncontradicted) the term Brahman is derived as “ Vrha +
man”, meaning thereby the Great. Accordingly, Brahman is
Infinite, Eternal, Pure, Full Greatness, what the celebrated
Chandogya Upanisad calls “Bhumari”.
“Yo vai bhuma tat sukham nalpe sukhamasti
bhumaiva sukham bhuma tveva vijijnasitavya iti
bhumdnam bhagavo vijijnasa iti”.

72
— “The Infinite bliss. There is no bliss in anything finite.
Only the Infinite is bliss. One must desire to understand the
Infinite’. ‘Venerable sir, I desire to understand the Infinite”
— Chandyoga Upanisad 7.23.1

Brahman is naturally beyond ordinary conceptions and

descriptions. As a matter of fact, we cannot express our
thoughts at all, without certain common categories of worldly
affairs such as, substance and attribute, cause and effect,
space and time, change and activity and so on. But all these
empirical categories are not at all applicable in the case of
non-empirical Brahman. That is why it is depicted in
Taitiriya Upanisad as follows —
“Yato vaco nivartante
Aprapya manasa saha.
Anandam Brahmano vidvan.
Na vibheti kadacana Hi. ”

— ‘He also knows the Bliss of Brahman, whence all words

together with the mind turn away, unable to reach it — he
never fears’ (Taittnya Upaniuad 2/4/1.II. iv.l)

Negative descriptions are very frequently manifested in

varieties of Upanisadic srutis. He is ‘Agrhya’, i.e. cannot be
taken or thrown by the sense-organs; He is ‘Aslrsya’ i.e.

73
cannot become thin or worn out, He is ‘Asanga’ i.e.
independent, ‘Afar hi sajate’ i.e. He is not attached to
anything, He is ‘Asita’ i.e. He is not bound to anything; ‘Na
Vyathate’ i.e. He is not pained by anything; ‘Na Risyati’ i.e.
He is not hated by anything”. (Brhadaranyaka Upanisad.
3.9.26; 4.2.4; 4.4.22; 4:5.15).

The Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, again, gives a more

detailed negative description of Brahman by means of as
many as twenty negative terms — in the celebrated section
on “Aksara Brahman”. Here the great sage Yajnavalkya
describes the Aksara Brahman, Imutable Brahman to the
great female seer GargI — who scholarship as well as
courage to put him into difficulty, when he had to stop her
from asking unanswerable question (Br. U, 3.6.1).

He said — O, GargI, Brahmanas say that He is Aksara

or the Immutable one. He is ‘Asthula, Ananu, Ahrasva,
AdTrgha, Alohita, Asneha, Acchaya, Atama, Avayu,
Anakasa, Asanga, Arasa, Agandha, Acaksuka, Asrotra, Avak,
Amanah, Atejaska, Aprana, Amukha, Amatra, Anantara,
Avahya. That is, He is not gross, not subtle, not short, not
long, not red, not oily, not shadow, nor darkness, not air, not
ether, not attached, without taste, without smell, without

74
eyes, without ears, without speech, without heat, without
vital-breath, without mouth, without limit, without inside,
without outside. He does not eat or enjoy anything; no one
eats or enjoys Him.

“.. .na tadasnati kihcana na tadasnati kascancT.

cBr. U. 3/8/8)

There are also negative descriptions in Kenopanisad

“Na tatra caksurgacchati na vag gacchati no mano”

“Eyes cannot go there (where Brahman shines); nor speech,
nor mind’ (Kenopanisad\ 1.3).

It boldly concludes —

“Yasydmatam tasya matarn matamyasya na vedah sad’

But those who think that they do know Brahman do not really
know Him. {Ibid, 2.3).

The well-known Mundakopanisad 1.1.6. also gives a similar

negative description which runs as follows:

Yat tad adresyam agrdhyam agotram avarnam

Acaksuhsrotram tadapanipadam
Nityam vibhu sarwagatarh susuksmam
Tadavyam yadbhutayonim Paripasyanti dhlrah

15
— ‘By means of the Highest knowledge the wise behold
everywhere Brahman, which otherwise cannot be seen or
seized, which has no root or attributes, no eyes or ears, no
hands or feet; which is eternal and omnipresent, all-pervading
and extremely subtle; which is imperishable and the source of
all beings’(1.1.6)

In another well-known sruti of Mandukyopanisad we too

come across a deeply philosophical negative description
which ruins as follows:
Nantahprajnam na vahihprajnam nobhayataprajharh
na prajnanaghanam na prajharh naprajnarh. Adrstam
avyavaharyam agrdhyam alaksanam acontyam
avyapadesyam ekatmapratyasaram prapancopasamam
saritarh sivamadvaitam caturthain manyante. Sa Atma.
Sovijneyah.—Mandukyopanisad 7.

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective)

world, nor that which is conscious of the outer
(objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor
that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple
consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived,
unrelated incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, and
indescribable. The essence of the consciousness manifesting

76
as the self (in the three states-waking, dream, dreamless
sleep), It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all
bliss, and non-dual. This is what is known as the Fourth
(Tunya). This is Atman, and this has to be realized. The same
way of linguistic expression in negative terms we read in the
following mantra of Kathopanisad 1.3.15.

Asbdamasparsamarupam avyayam
Tatha arasarh nityamagandhavaccayat
Anadyanantarh mahatahparam dhruvarh
nicdyya tanmttyumukhat pramucyate

Having realized Atman, which is soundless, intangible,

formless, undecaying, and likewise tasteless, eternal and
odorless, having realized that which is without beginning and
end, beyond the Great, and unchanging — one is freed from
the jaws of death. (Kathopanisad 1.3.15).

It is evident from the various srutis Brahman is depicted

as Nirvisesa, Eka, Bhedarahita, Nirguna, Niskriya,
Nirvikara, and Niranjana.

Sankara is definite that the knowledge of reality cannot even

be guessed at without the Upanisads which are the only
means of knowledge concerning the existence and the nature

77
of Brahman. According to Sankara, there is twofold validity
of the instrumental means of knowledge — as setting forth
functional reality and as setting forth absolute reality
(vyavaharikatatvavedakatvarh paramarthikattvavedaka tva
hceti). The first variety which comprises of six pramasna-s
say perception, inference etc. cannot yield the knowledge of
the Absolute (Brahman). It can only be attained through the
realization of sruti, upanisad, verily the mahavakya-s. To cite
just a couple of instances of his remarks along these lines:
The knowledge of reality is only from the upanisadic texts
(tattvajndnam tu vedantavakyebhya eva bhavanti) B.S.Bh.—
2.1.3.

As for the view that there must be other means of

knowledge about Brahman, since Brahman is an already
existing entity, that is mere fanciful thinking. This thing
[Brahman] is not an object of perception/ because it is
without form etc. Nor is it an object of inference etc. since it
has no mark (linga) etc. from which an inference can be
made. But like religious duty, it is to be known solely from
the scriptures. (B.S.Bh. 2.1.6.)

If Brahman is an object, then perception would be the

means of knowledge to reveal it. But this is not so, for

78
Brahman is without form. Since Brahman is not available for
perception, Brahman also cannot be inferred, because
inference relies on some perceptual data which must be
necessarily related to Brahman, but such a relation cannot be
established if Brahman is not first a sense object. Even if we
could infer the existence of Brahman on the basis of cause
and effect, we could only arrive at the knowledge of a Being
that is the efficient cause of the world. However the
Upanisads reveal that Brahman is not only the efficient cause
of the world, but Brahman is also its material cause.

Yathornanabhih srjate grnhate ca

Yatha Prthivyamosdhyah sambhabanti
Yatha satah purusat kesalomani
Tatha aksarat sambhavatiha visvam.

As a spider spreads out and withdraws (its thread), as on

earth grow the herbs (and trees) and as from the living man
issues out hair on the head and body, so out of the Immutable
does the universe emerge here (in this phenomenal creation.
— Mundakopanisad, 1.1.7.

Tapasa cTyate Brahma tatah annam abhijayate

Annat prano manah satyarh lokah karmasu ca camrtam.

79
Brahman expands by means of austerity (knowledge) and
from It primal matter (food) is produced; from matter (food),
Ptana (Hiranyagarbha); from Prana, mind; from mind, the
elements, the worlds; thence works {karma) and from the
works, their immortal fruits. —Mundakopanisad, 1.1.8.
Yah sarvajhah sarvavid yasya jnanamayam tapah
Tasmat etad Brahma nama rupamannam ca jayate.

From Him, who is omniscient in general and all-knowing in

detail and whose austerity is constituted by knowledge,
evolve this Brahma (derivative Brahman), name, colour and
food.. —Mundakopanisad, 1.1.9.

Upanisadic texts further reveal that the essential nature

of Brahman is Awareness, and that the essential nature of the
individual soul is none other than the Awareness, that is,
Brahman.
Jnatrjneya jnanasunyam anantam nirvikalpakam
Kevalakhandacinmatrarh param tattvarh vidurbudhah
.—Vivekacudamani, 239.

Sages realize the supreme truth, Brahman, in which there is

no differentiation of knower, knowledge, and known which is

80
infinite, transcendent, and the Essence of knowledge
Absolute.

This point, that the true nature of the self is pure

Awareness that is Brahman itself, certainly requires the
Upanisadic revelation. Early in his commentary upon the
Brahmasutra, Sankara raises the objection that it is not
correct to maintain that the true nature of the self is known
through the Upanisads, because the self is contained in the
idea of “I” His answer is the negative — the self is the
witness of the idea of “I”. For neither in the section of the
Veda which enjoins religious duty, nor in the tenets of the
logicians, does any one come to understand that Being
(purusa) which, as distinct from the agent that is contained in
the idea of “I”, is the witness of that [I-notion], present in all
beings, uniform, one, immutably eternal the self of all. B.S.
Bh.l.lA.

Thus Sankara says the self-understanding that people

normally possess, that the self is the self-reflexive subject
evident in such acts of reflexive awareness as: “I am such
and such” etc is an error, because the true self is the absolute
subject, it is pure Awareness, the “witness” of the ego and its
activities, and it is actually without boundary. The Upanisads

81
reveal that there is a reality behind the cosmos; that the
cosmos is a unity and is non-separate from that reality; and
that this reality is the true self of everything. If the Upanisads
are revelation, what is the legitimate scope of human reason
in determining the nature of reality? Sankara is not against
reasoning per se, his opposition is towards reasoning that is
not in harmony with what the Upanisads reveal.

The Advaita Vedantins following scriptures, offer two

types of definitions of Brahman (1) Svarupalaksana or the
essential definition and (2) Tatasthalaksna or the accidental
definition. Brahman is, therefore, viewed from two stand­
points. From the point of view of Brahman Itself and from
the point of view of the world.

Viewed in itself It is called the Absolute, Nirguna (i.e.

Brahman) and viewed in relation to the world. It is called
God (Saguna Brahma i.e. Isvara). It means that God is the
Absolute from the cosmic point of view. So long as we are in
the vyavaharika (empirical) level, which is relative and
relational, we cannot but speak of the ultimate as God. We
tty to relate the world with the Ultimate as the cause of it.
But the dualism of God and world, which is inherent in the
category of causality, does not satisfy the demands of reason

82
and has, therefore, to be transcended. It is for this reason that
the dualist poison of theism, even though methodologically
significant and valuable, is not final.

Unless the ultimate is known in Itself, there is no

overcoming of the vyavaharika realm of dualities. It follows
that the metaphysics of Advaita, which is trans-theistic and
not anti-theistic is oriented towards the discovery of the
ultimate. Brahman, the Absolute Reality, is described as “the
Real Knowledge, Infinite”, by the scriptures. Sat (existence),
cit (consciousness), ananta (infinity), ananda (bliss) are the
essential characteristics of Brahman and as such they
constitute the essential definition of Brahman. The Sruti
refers to the essential definition of Brahman when it
describes Brahman as “satyam jnanam anantam Brahma.”5
(Brahman is existence, consciousness and infinity),
“ Vijhanam anandam Brahma”6 (Brahman is knowledge and
bliss), “•anando Brahmeti vyajanat”7 (He knew Brahman as
bliss) and so on. When the Upanisad says that “Brahman is
that from which all beings come into existence and that

5 717,2.1.
6 Br. U. 3.9.28.
7 TU, 3.6.

83
towards which they move and into which they merge,”8 It
defines Brahman in terms of Its accidental attribute, because
causality of the world is an external qualification or attribute
of Brahman, which is meaningful only in the context of its
relation to the world. It is not a definition of what Brahman is
in Itself, on the contrary it is a definition of Brahman in
relation to something else.”

Advaita Vedanta believes in the manifestation of

Brahman is two forms as Para Brahman (Nirguna Brahman
i.e. Supreme Reality) and Apara Brahman (Saguna
Brahman). In its pure untainted form, Brahman is Nirvisesa
(unqualified), Nisprapanca (Transcendent), Nirguna
(Indeterminate). But in association with Maya, It appears as
though possessing qualities and as such is referred to as being
Saguna (Determinate), Savisesa (Qualified), Saprapanca
(Immanent), Sankara makes (in this connection), a distinction
between the description (i.e. tatastha laksana) of a thing and
its definition (,svarupa-laksana). The former gives only the
accidental qualities or modes of a thing, while the latter
reveals its essential nature. The Brahma-sutra “Janmadyasya

8 “Yato va imani bhutani jayante. Yena jatani Jivanti.

Yat prayantyabhisamvisanti. Tad vijijnasasva. Tad Brahmeti.”
717,111.3.1.

84
Yatah (1.1.2) says that Brahman is the cause of the creation,
preservation and dissolution of the universe, commenting
r

upon this, Sankara says that this is merely a description of

Brahman, it is not Its definition as such. Being the cause of
this universe, consisting of individual selves and external
objects is an accidental quality of Brahman and not Its
essential nature. Causality is a category of thought which has
empirical validity but not final reality. It cannot be really
attribute to Brahman. When the Upanisads declare that
Brahman is Sat (Reality), Cit (Consciousness), Ananda
(Bliss), these terms should not be taken to represent Its
qualities, but rather Its very essence, or else the contingency
of dualism would creep in due to the emergence of two
realities — the qualificand and the qualifier, which would be
r

contradictory to the doctrine of non-dualism of Sankara’s

school of thought.

In Advaita terminology the term Brahman is suggestive

of vastness, all pervasiveness, unlimitedness, absolute
individuality. Whatever division is attributed to it in
philosophical disquisition is only a concession to the
limitations of normal experience of thought and senses,
hence so long as the world of thought and senses persists, the

85
Absolute Reality, which is one and undifferentiated, cannot
but be regarded in dual and interrelated aspects of
immanence and distinctions. So, as the ultimate cause of all
appearances, Brahman has to be described as both immanent
in, and also as distinct from, all appearances so long as these
appearances linger on in the empirical state of existence.
Brahman is the only Reality (Absolute) in its intrinsic sense,
all the others are nothing but Its appearances. This
indeterminate Brahman is a synonym of what has been
referred to repeatedly as the one ultimate and underlying
Reality, the non-realization of which has resulted in all kinds
of empirical and illusory and beginningless (<anadi)
appearances making up the whole universe of the two
theories of Reflection (Prativimbavada) and Limitation
(.Avacchedavada) propounded by the Advaitins to prove the
illusory nature of the plurality of selves and the consequent
undivided oneness of the Absolute, Sankara explains the
latter theory on the analogy of pot (ghata) and space (akasa)
and he propounds that the Absolute seems to assume
differentiations on account of its being limited by the
intellect, sense-organs, bodies etc. The limitation which
causes differentiation is due to Ajnana, ‘Primal Ignorance”.

86
The Absolute intrinsically remains one undivided whole like
space. The principle of Ajnana, which generates the illusion
of distinctions is also taken as the key-concept for resolving
the contradictions among scriptural statements which declare
the individual self to be both identical with, and different
from the Absolute.

As a matter of fact, Brahman is not the least concerned

with the act of creation. It is only in Its apparent association
with Avidya or Maya that It is said to evolve the world out of
Itself. But since this association is nothing but illusory, there
is no actual evolution (parindma) of Brahman into the world,
as of milk into curd. There is only an illusory appearance
(vivarta) of Brahman as the world, like the appearance of the
rope as the snake.9 Hence Brahman is not at all affected by
the so-called evolution and reabsorption of the world.
Sankara says in this context that “the cause is not affected by
the effect and its qualities, because the latter are mere
fallacious superimpositions of Ajnana. And what is true of

9 Parinamonama upadana samasattaka karyapattih

Vivarto namo upadanavisamasattaka karyapattih
Vedantaparibhasa, Dharmarajadvarlndra, p. 49, translated and
Annotated by Swami Madhavananda Advaita Ashrama
Eleventh Impression, May 2008.

87
creation hold good with regard to dissolution as well.10 But
even when Brahman is conceived as the creative an
preservative cause of the world process, Its role consists in
merely “casting a glance” which is sufficient to set Maya into

motion. The entire process goes on spontaneously, without

any active participation of Brahman as such. It is thus that
Brahman is described by the Bhamati as having “The Vedas
as Its breath, the five elements as Its looks, the entire world
of sentient and insentient creatures as Its smile, and ultimate
1 1
dissolution (of the world) as Its dreamless sleep.”

Brahman is also described as the teleological Principle.

The world reveals to us a wonderful plan and order of
existence, and this plan is consistent only with the existence
of a consciousness power behind it.

Sankara says in this regard that this world cannot be

conceived as coming out of a blind force, implying that there

10 “EvamavasthatrayasaksT ekah avyabhicarT avasthatrayen

Vyabhicarina na sarhsprsyate. . . tatra yaduktamapTtau
Karanasyapi kdryasyaiva sthaulyadidosaprasangah
ityedayuktam” — Sdnkarabhdsya on B.S. II. 1.9.
11 “Nihsasitamasya veddh viksitametasya pahcabhutani
Smitametasya caracaramasya ca suptam mahapralayah
— Bhamati — Introductory verse (No. 2)

88
exists a rational power or consciousness behind the world
order and that is Brahman.12

According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is omniscient

and this consists in its capacity of manifesting everything in
the world. Just as the lamp is capable of illuminating each
and every content in its vicinity, in the same way Brahman is
to be regarded as ceaselessly illuminating everything in the
world. It being the material cause of everything and
everything being pervaded by It.13

Brahman is also defined as “Anugata’ (i.e. Immanent in

all worldly entities), vyavrtta (i.e. distinct from worldly
entities), Ananugata-vyavrtta (i.e. transcending even those
two aspects). The use of such terms is merely a formal
attempt at distinguishing and analysing logically, what is in
reality “Indistinguishable” “Indivisible” and Absolutely One
and above all logical analysis. Brahman as Immanent is
involved in the world as its source and sustenance through its

12 A to racananupapattesca hetornacetanam karanamanumatavyarh

bhavati — S.B. on BS II.2.1.
uYatha prakasadravyasya pradipasya svasannihita
asesavastuprakasita evarh prakasasvarupasya
Brahmanah sarvopadanata sarvasarhsarginah
svasannihitasesavastuprakasita nityavat bhavatiti yuktarh
samarthydnusarena sarvajnatvam. (Vivarana).

89
Appearances, and as transcendent, It is concerned with, and
absolutely unrelated to, anything; It is completely prominent
by its absence from the standpoint of Reality. This statement
is neither paradoxical nor involves any logical inconsistency,
as the two positions are clearly based on two different stand­
points. In other words, the representation of one and the same
Reality-Consciousness-Bliss Brahman as Immanent, that is
pervading, permeating, and pulsating through all worldly
entities14 and as transcendent, i.e. beyond the reach of all of
them is not any assertive proposition but only reconciliatory
of two apparent contradictions: the world appearing to be real
to normal human experience on the one hand and Brahman,
the only Reality recognised by the Upanisadic texts, on the
other. Thus the transcendent, Absolute and Aspectless
Brahman is not only essentially One, unrelated, unlimited,
Immutable, Inexhaustible but also free from the logical and
metaphysical inconsistencies.

Immanence is truth or reality in relation to all

appearances of the world and so is ‘Distinction’ too till the
dualism of Atman and Anatman or Pratyak and Parak is not

14 Akhandam saccidanandam avanmanasagocaram

A tmanamakhiladhdramdsrye abhistasiddhaye.
Vedantsara (of Sadananda).

90
cancelled by realization of Brahman. Both “Immanence” and
“Distinction” appear to be true so long as truth or Reality
Itself has not been realized. When Reality proper is fully
realized, not only Avidya but also the universe with all its
apparent truths and empirical realities are sublated. The
identity between Jiva and Brahman be hilly realized, the
highest of all knowledge (Paravidya) be achieved.55
“Tattvasamasi” (that thou art) is “Jiva Bramaikya pratipakcT
jnana. It is thus that Brahman, which is described by Advaita
Vedanta as “One without a second” (.Ekamevadvitvlyam), is
bereft of any form of distinction, be it sajatiyabheda (i.e.
difference subsisting between two [different] objects of the
same class-Brahman being only one); vijafiya-bheda (i.e.
difference subsisting between two objects of different classes
— there being no object existing apart from Brahman); and
svagatabheda i.e. internal distinction — Brahman being one
whole, Indivisible and Unchangeable. According to Advaita,
there is nothing like or unlike the ultimate. It means that there
is no plurality of reals. Also, the ultimate Reality is free from
internal differentiation. It is neither a whole consisting of
parts nor a substance possessing attributes. The three words

15 Bhidyate hrdayagranthih cchidyante sarvasarhsayah ksiyante easya

karmani tasmin drste paravare — Mundakopanisad, 2.2.8.

91
in the Upanisadic text “Ekam” (one), “eva” (only) and
“advitiyam” (without a second) are intended in respect of the
Ultimate Reality (Brahma). So the Ultimate Reality is one
non-dual, homogeneous, infinite and without beginning and
end. Brahman is devoid of all descriptions and definitions all
comparisons, and contrasts, and being so, all that can be said
about. It is that. It is not like anything in this world. This is
why the Upanisads describe It as simply “net?' “nett, “not
this”, “not this”.16
r

Post Sankara Vedantins are generally divided into two

major schools — 1) Bhamati Prasthana advocated by
Vacaspati Misra and 2) Vivarana Prasthana based on
‘ Vivarana Pahcapadikatika (commentary on Pancapadika by
Padmapadacarya, a direct disciple of Sri Sankaracarya) by
Prakasatmayati. From the foregoing discussion it is evident
that what is known as Brahman at the paramarthika level, is
known as Isvara or Jtva at the vyavaharika or empirical
level, viewed respectively from the universal and individual
perspective. It is thus that the eternally free Brahman, the
only one Reality is projected as illusorily the Jiva due to the
influence of beginnigless Avidya. Hence, the description of

16 “Neti neti na hi etsmat iti na iti anyat pararrf. Br. U. II.3.6.

92
Brahman first as free from all adjuncts of Avidya, in which
instance it is said to be “Omniscient” and “Omnipotent”. The
point that Vaeaspatl Misra derives is that even the conception
of Brahman as Omniscient and Omnipotent is but the result
of Advaita

1) Both the schools (Bhamati prasthana and Vivarana

prasthana) emphasize the point that the nature of
Brahman can be known only through the Scriptures
(Upanisad). Verbal testimony is, therefore, postulated as
the sole means of knowledge with regard to Brahman,
since it cannot be grasped through any of the empirical
means of knowledge. ,

2) Both the Bhamati and the Vivarana schools postulate

that Brahman is the efficient cause as well as the
material cause of the world. They both explain the
origination, preservation and dissolution of the world by
taking recourse to superimposition (adhyasa) by Maya.

3) According to both the sections, Brahman is self-

luminous requiring no external instrumentality for its
illumination or for Its to become known.

4) That Brahman is Omniscient is illustrated by both the

Bramati and the Vivarana by the fact that the Vedas, the

93
 book of knowledge poor excellence, the repository of all
knowledge, has its origin in Brahman.17 Being the
origination of the Vedas is as natural as the act of
inhaling and exhaling. What this means is that
knowledge being the very essence of Brahman its
“origination” is but figuratively alluded to for the sake of
convenience, since knowledge in the form of the Vedas
has no origination and is not subject to destruction as
such, it being eternal, without beginning and without
end.

5) Brahman, according to the Vivarana, is subordinate to

none. It being indeed second to none. It is constant,
changeless and is not subject to any kind of alteration.
That one Reality, says the Bhamatl also on its part.
Hence also the denial of plurality is propounded by both
the schools.

17 Mahatah Rgvedadeh sastrasaneka-vidydsthanopavrmhitasya

pradipavat sarvarthavadyotinah sarvajnakalpasya yohih
kdranarh Brahma. Na hidrsasya sastrasya Rgvedadilaksanasya
sarvagunanvitasya sarvajat anyatah sambhavah asti
— S.B. onBS. 1.1.3;
Vedantadarsana, Vol. I, p. 117, edited by Swami Viswarupananda,
published by Udbodhan Karyalay, Calcutta, Second edition (Revised),
August, 1993.

94
6) Lastly, both the BhamatT and the Vivarana agree on the
point that it is only by realizing the real nature of
Brahman (Tattvasaksatkara) that eternal freedom from
the influence of Avidya and for that purpose no external
action is sanctioned by the scriptures, Brahman being as
such already and eternally attained.18

There is, however, this much of difference between the

Bhamatl and the Vivarana on this issue: while the latter holds
that Brahmajnana is attainable directly from verbal
testimony, the former holds that verbal testimony can only
lead to an indirect knowledge of Brahman.”19 Let us now see
what are the main tenets of the Bhamati school.
1) Karmas are useful for giving rise to the desire to know the
self.
2) The realization of Brahman arises through the instrument
of the mind.

18 Na rtirodho na cotpattirna vaddho na ca sadhakah

Na mumuksurna vaimukta ityesa paramarthata
Mandukyakarika, (11-32) by Gaudapada.
19 “Nihsreyasaphalarh tu Brahmajnanam, na
canusthdnantarapeksam ”
— SB. on B.S. 1.1.1;
‘ Vedantadarsana’ vil. I, p. 75. edited by Swami Viswarupananda,
published by Udbodhan Karyalay, Calcutta, Second edition (Revised),
August 1993.

95
3) There is no injunction in the Vedic text “Atman should be
realised, (and) for that purpose, It should be heard,
reflected and mediated upon” (“Atma va are drastavyah
srotavyah mantavyah nididhyasitavyah”)
4) Meditation is the principal factor, and Vedantic study and
reflection are its subsidiary factors.
5) Jiva is consciousness limited by ajnana.
6) The locus and content of ajnana are different.
7) The primal Avidya is manifold.
8) It is only Brahman that is conditioned by the vrtti that is
the content of direct knowledge of Brahman.
9) The mind is a sense-organ.
10) ‘Avidya’ is located in Jiva.
11) The nature of Jiva and Isvara is explained by the theory
of “avacchedavada”. (the theory of limitation)

Let us now turn towards the main tenets of the Vivarana

school.
1) Karma is responsible for the size of the knowledge of the
self.
2) The direct knowledge of Brahman arises from major texts
of the Upanisads.
3) On the text “Atman should be realised” etc. there is
restrictive injunction.

96
4) Vedantic study is the principal factor, and reflection and
meditation are the subsidiary features (in knowledge).
5) “Jiva” is the reflected image of Brahman in “Avidya”.
6) The locus and content of “avidya” is the same.
7) The Primal Avidya is one only.
8) The content of the direct knowledge of Brahman is pure
Brahman.
9) The mind is not a sense-organ.
10) “Avidya” is located in Pure consciousness.
11) The nature of JTva and Isvara is explained by the theory
of Pratibimbavada. (the theory reflection)
Jiva —
Gunanvayo yah phalakarmakarta
Krtasya tasyaiva sa copabhokta
Sa visvarupastrigunastrivartmd
Pranadhipah sahcarati svakarmabhih
— Svetasvetara Upanisad, 5/7.
This means,

He who is endowed with the attributes, who is a

performer of action leading to a result, and is himself the
enjoyer of the result that very action which has been done, he
has many forms, is possessed of the three qualities, has three

97
paths, is the master of the vital force, and moves by his own
actions. However, Advaita Vedanta does not deny outright
the plurality of souls i.e. of individual selves, at the empirical
level. Each individual self is a complex entity consisting of
the self {Atman) and the mind-sense-body complex.
According to Advaita Vedanta, the self by its nature is
consciousness, eternal, and self-luminous while the mind-
sense-body complex, which is not-self, is composite,
ephemeral and therefore perishable. The not-self acts as a
limiting factor, an adjunct (upadhi) to the self, resulting in a
multitude of apparently limited, deluded individual selves
called Jiva-s. The self constitutes the essential nature of the
Jlvas in much the same way as one and the same thread
permeates individual beads having characteristics of their
own that differentiate the one from the other. It is because of
this difference with reference to adjuncts {upadhi) that each
Jiva exists and functions as a separate unit of action and
center of experience. The Advaita Vedantins cite scriptural
evidence that there is no plurality of souls as such but rather
unity in diversity.21 Hence, the Jiva qua self should be
recognized not as a separate real entity different from

20 “Neha nanasti kihcana”. Br.U., IV 4.19.

21 “Sarvam Khalvidam Brahmav. Ch. Up., III. 14.1.

98
Brahman, but as identical with Brahman (Tattvamasi - ‘That
thou art Chandogyo Upanisad. 6.13.3)

What is true of the individual Self (Jiva) is true of

Universal Self (Isvara) at a higher level. Isvara or God is the
personal aspect of impersonal Brahman.22(?) As Saguna
Brahman He is the abode of all auspicious qualities
((asesakalyanaguna-sampanna). He is the perfect-personality.
He is the material cause (Upadana Karana) as well as the
efficient cause (Nimitta Karana) of the universe, consisting
of individual selves (Jiva-s) and the objective world. As he is
the Lord of Maya, the covering or concealing power
((avarana-sakti) of Maya cannot operate on him and does not,
therefore, conceal his nature. He controls the projecting
power (viksepa-sakti) of Maya through which He appears as
the individual selves and the objective world.

The Jiva is said to possess three bodies — causal,

subtle and gross. The causal body (karana-sarira) of the Jiva
is Nescience, and as qualified by that body, it is known as
prajna. The subtle body (suksma-sarira) of the Jiva consists
of the five organs of sense, the five organs of action, the five
vital airs, mind and intellect and it is called Taijasa. The

22 “Ayamatma Brahma”. Br. U., II.5.19.

99
gross-body (,sthula-sarira) of the JTva is its particular
physical frame which is a composite of the five-fold
elements. When the JTva has conceit in its physical body, it is
called visva. The subject element in JTva is saksin (witness)
which is Pure Consciousness (TurTya) and is identical with
Brahman. Hence Isvara, Saksin and JTva are intrinsically non-
different from Brahman, their apparent difference is due to
their association with Maya or Avidya in different degrees,
and this association is also illusory. The phenomenal
character of God is realized when Brahman is directly
experienced (Tattvasaksatkara i.e. Aparoksanubhuti), and
then there is neither Isvara, nor JTva, nor the world. The
ultimate reality (Brahman) unrealized on account of Avidya
and, as appearing in and through the latter and its
modifications, gives rise to appearance of diversity i.e.
empirical entities of the universe.
Since the Ultimate Reality or Principle i.e. Brahman
and the world stand in the relation of the Real and the
‘apparent’ whereby the latter is the effect of the former, it
becomes imperative that the nature of this relationship be
examined in the light of Advaita Vedanta. The follows of
Sankara have given different explanations for the relationship

100
subsisting between the self and the not-self and its nature,
which may be conveniently, classified under three schools,
viz. (i) Abhasa-vada (the Theory of Appearance)
(ii) Pratibimba vada (the Theory of Reflection)
and (iii) Avaccheda-vada (The Theory of Limitation)
1) According to Suresvara (author of Varttika), the main
exponent of Abhasa-vada, the universe with all its
phenomenal truths or pseudo-realities is as much appearances
as illusions, but with this difference that the former are
primary appearances and as such “recognized” to be “real”,
while the latter are secondary appearances and as such are
considered to be ‘unreal ordinarily’ even in the realm of
relativity of the plane of phenomenalism. Just as to a man in
a state of trance certain appearances are known as real, while
these same appearances are known to him as illusory in the
normal state of mind, in like manner the phenomenal
appearances or pseudo-reals of the universe seem to be real
for all intents and purposes to the Avidya-stricken people (i.e.
Jiva), but cease to appear as real to the same {Jiva) on the
realization of the Absolute Reality (i.e. Brahman), which
instantaneously sublates Avidyd and all its projects. At the
realization it is apprehended that the Primordial Appearance,
immured in Avidyd, is the perennial source of all other

101
‘manifold appearances’, answering to the multiple
modifications or possible projections of Avidyd. Avidyd is
both the modifying medium and the effectuating principle. It
is the energising power and the diversifying force responsible
for eliciting diverse appearances from the Absolute Reality,
corresponding and suitable to itself and its multifarious
modifications. Thus every object of the universe is an
appearance of the Ultimate Reality, the Brahman through the
said process and all causal factors and conditions involved in
the various forms in the evolution of manifold appearances
are summed up in one term “Avidyd”. The Abhasa-vada is
distinguishable from the other two schools in a number of
ways. “Pratibimba or reflectional appearance is taken to be
identical with the prototype i.e. the Bimba, and hence as
much real as the original. And in the case of an ‘Avaccheda ’
i.e. ‘limitary appearance’ only limitation is conceptual and
unreal, but what comes to appear as limited is essentially
unlimited and real. Abhasa i.e. a seeming appearance on the
other hand, is neither identical with the underlying reality nor
is itself real in any sense. Sublation of all appearances once
for ever instantaneously on the realization of Reality is the
case of Emancipation i.e. Moksa. Varttikakara Suresvara’s

102
Abhasavada propounds the theory that the Jiva-s are as real
as Brahman, the Ultimate Reality they being ‘primary
appearances’ in and through Avidya, while the objects of the
world are unreal, they being secondary are appearances i.e.,
mere reflections of the primary appearance Reality as
appearing primarily and directly or indirectly in Avidya and
its numerous modifications constitutes the backbone of all
further outer appearances. These original Appearances of
Reality emerge into further outer and fresh appearances,
directly known as the Phenomenal or empirical entities and
into still further ones, recognized as illusions. Thus is
established the reality of the Primary appearances (.JTvas,
Isvara) and the unreality of the secondary appearances (the
material objects, etc.)

Pratibimba-vada:
The theory of Pratibimba-vada (theory of Reflection)
advocated by Padmapada, Prakasatman and others of the
Vivarana school tries to establish the undivided oneness of
the Absolute and the selves is like that of the original (i.e. the
Prototype or Bimba) and its reflection. Just as the original
appears as separate and distinct from itself by way of
reflection, in the same way the Absolute when reflected in

103
the numerous adjuncts {upadhi-s) in the form of intellects,
said to be modifications of Ajnana (Nescience), appears as
many individual selves. The Vivarana School upholding the
theory of reflection (Bimbapratibimba-vada), regards JTva-s
and Isvara to be Brahman reflected in the numerous adjuncts
{upadhi- s), such as the intellect-sense-body-complex.
According to this theory, the One Absolute Reality appears
as numerous selves due to the intervening adjuncts and their
cause Avidya. Just as the reflections appearing in mirror, etc.
are identical with the proto-type, in the same way JJvas also
are identical with Brahman. The same holds good for Isvara
also but with this difference that while the Jiva-s are affected
by the dual potencies {avaranasakti and viksepasakti, power
of concealment and distortion) of Maya, the latter (i.e. Isvara)
is above such influences. He being Himself the Lord of
Maya (and also Lord reflections are false within
themselves, yet what appears in them (viz. consciousness) is
True in its essence. Madhusudana Sarasvatl supports this
view more effectingly when he emphasizes the point by the
example of face and its reflection in the mirror, that self and
Brahman are identical. Those, who admit that there is

22 Mayam tu prakrtim vidydnmayinantu mahesvaram.

— Svetdsvatara Upanisad, 4/10.

104
difference between the face and its reflection in the mirror,
explain their point of view with the example of Caitra and his
shadow. They further clarify that it is evident to the person
who is sitting near, that his (Caitra5 s) face and the reflection
in the mirror are distinct. Moreover, even in the absence of
any other person sitting near, the distinction between the
original and its reflection becomes evident to the person
himself when he takes into consideration his own hand and
its reflection in the mirror. Madhusudana Sarasvatl does not
accept it and points out that the difference between the
original and its reflection is apparent, and not real. He further
points out that, if it were scrutinized closely, it would become
clear that it is due to the mirror that the face is superimposed
on it. It is the experience of one and all that everybody
understands that reflection is the same as the original (face, in
the present case). In this way, it is evident that the original
and its reflection are not essentially different and it is on this
basis that the analogy of the original and its reflection is
offered to establish the identity of the self with Absolute.23

23 “Tatha Jiva-Brahmanomukhapratimukhavat bimbapratibimba

rupatvad api abhedah avagantavyah. Nanu drstdnte nabhedah
satpratipannah’, Caitratacchaye bhinne itivat caitratatpratibimbe
bhinne ityeva parsvasthitena grahanat, svenapi
svakaratatpratibimbe bhinne iti grahanat cenna; apdtato

105
Avacchedavada:
The limitation theory {Avacchedavada) as propounded
by Vacaspati Misra (Bhamatlkara) is also an attempt to
establish that the self is none but the Absolute. According to
this theory, One undivided and unlimited Ultimate Reality
comes to be viewed as limited on account of different
limiting adjuncts {upadhi-s). It is based on pot-space analogy.
The space in a pot {ghatakasa) and the space (outside) are
interlocked in relation of identity with each other. Similarly
the relation between the individual self and the Absolute is
that of identity. The individual self is neither a part nor
modification of the ultimate (self) just as the space in a pot
{ghatakasa) can be termed neither as a part nor modification
of space.24

bhedapratitdvapi sayuktikapratyaksena bimbapratibimba-

yoraikyasiddhya drstantatvopapatteh . . . gnvastham mukharh
yatsalaksanakam pratipannarh darpanasthamapi
tathetyavadharya tathaivedam mukhamiti sa evayarh kora iti ca
svaparasadharanapratitirapyanubhavas iddha.
— Advaitasiddhi, (Madhusudana Sarasvatl), Parimal
Publications, Delhi, 1982, p. 847.
24 Na Jiva atmanah anyah napi tadvikarah, kintu
atmaivavidyopadhanakalpitavacchedah — akasa iva
ghatamanikadikalpitdvaccedo ghatdkaso manikakasah, na
tu paramakasat anyastadvika.ro va — Bhamati on SB
1.4.22

106
 The individual self gets its name because of the body in
the same manner as the pot-space gets its name on account of
the pot. Sankara uses this analogy as if to clarify the point at
issue. He holds that it is due to adjuncts that the Absolute is
said to give rise to the emergence of many individual selves
just as different parts of space are apparently perceived to
arise when space is limited by pots etc and dissolved back
into space when pots etc. disappear. What is noteworthy in
the illustration is that space is held to be the cause in both the.
situations. In this way Avaccedavada, too, seeks to
demonstrate that the Absolute is One Undivided whole and
the apparent emergence of many selves is due to numerous
limiters in the form of upadhi-s (adjuncts) which are said to
be the modifications of Advaita. But just as on the removal
of the jars etc the appearance of variety of space disappears,
resulting into the apprehension of space in its natural form, in
like manner, on the removal of the upadhi-s (adjuncts) such
as the intellect etc. the JJva-s which are essentially and

Vedantadarsanam, vol. I, p. 567, edited by Durgacaran

Samkhya-Vedantatirtha, Published by Sanskrita Pustak
bhandar, Asad, 1376, (Bangabda)
Yathd akasasya susirabhedotpattipralaya-nimittatvam ghatadi
upadhikrtameva tadvadaksarasyapi namarupakrtadehopadhi-
nimittameva jivotpattipralayanimittatvam.
SB. on Mundakopanisad, II. 14.

107
ceaselessly identical with Brahman, regain as though their
real nature — that of identity with the Absolute. As a matter
of fact, it seems from the analysis of Bhamati views and
those of the Vivarana as concerns the individual selves as
well as their nature and as their relations with Brahman that
both of-the schools postulate more or less the same doctrines.
Both share the doctrine of Jiva-Brahman-identity and both
hold Avidya and its products — the upadhi-s (adjuncts) such
as intellect, sense, body, etc. to be responsible for the
apparent sense of finitude and perishability of the Jiva-s Both
of the schools also believe in the purity and eternity of the
selves and in their being essentially free from agentship
(Kartrtva), enjoyership (bhokrtatva), etc. Both also postulate
‘True knowledge’ {Paravidya) as the means to liberation
{Moksa) of the Jfva-s. The apparent plurality of selves
whether interpreted as reflections of Brahman or as Brahman
in the form of limited entities is but illusory and therefore
unreal. Citing the views of Kasakrtsna, Sankara says that the
Supreme Self Himself appears as the individual souls without
undergoing any transformation. And this, says, Sankara, “is
in accordance with the Upanisads, for it agrees with the
instruction sought to be imparted, as stated in such texts as,
“That Thou Art” and from this standpoint, (of non-

108
 different), the attainment 6f immortality as a result of the
knowledge of the self is quite in order. Sankara observes
further that should the iudividual soul be taken to be
created, then the scriptural assertion of the attainment of
immortality through knowledge of the Supreme Self
would become meaningless, because ‘the modification of a
substance loses itself on merging into its material cause.
Moreover, for Sankara, name and form cannot be the “natural
appendages of the individual soul, for in reality, name and
form belong to the limiting adjuncts.” That is why, continues
. r

Sankara, the allusion made in the Upanisads to the origin of

the individual soul, while referring to the simile of sparks
darting out of fire, should be understood as referring to the
adjuncts alone, and not to the Jlva-s as such.
“ Vikdratmakatve hi JJvasyabhyupagamyamane Vikarasya
Prakrtisambandhe pralayaprasahgat na tajjhanat
amrtatvamavakalpeta. Atasca svasrayasya namarupasya-
sambhavat upadhyasrayarh namarupam jiva upacaryate. Ata

26 Kasakrtsnasydearyasyavikrtah evesvaro jivo nanya iti matam

. . . tatra kasakrtsmyam matam srutyanusariti gamyate,
pratipipadayisitarthanusarat “Tattvamasi ” ityadi srutibhyah
evarh ca sati tajjnancit amriatvamavakalpate.
— S.B on 5.iS. 1.4.22.
Vedaatadarsana, Vol. I, p. 942, edited by Swami
Viswarupananda published by Udbodhan Karyalaya, Calcutta,
Second edition (Revised), August 1993.

109
eva utpattirapi Jivasya kvacit agnisphulinga udaharanena
sravayamana upadhydsraiva vedaitvya. ”
— S.B. on B.S. 1.4.22.

Jagat:
r

“Slokardhena pravaksyami yaduktam granthakotibhih

Brahma satyam Jaganmittya JTva Brahmaiva naparah.”
r

(Sankaracarya’s Brahmajnanavalimald, Verse 20,)

According to Advaita Vedanta, Reality is “One without a

second” (Ekamevadvitiyam), though there is apparent
plurality at the empirical level due to the concealing and
projective influences of Maya. Sankara says that Brahman or
Sat is “That entity which is mere esse (astitamatram) —
subtle, devoid of specification, All-pervading, One, Taintless
Impartite, Consciousness, as understood from the Vedanta
texts.

The physical world being a mere appearance of

Brahman and having Maya as its substrate, is not real says
the Advaitin. This Maya is the key-concept of Advaita
philosophy and with the help of this concept Sankara
reconciled two types of the following contradictory Sruti
texts —

no
 (i) Neha nanasti kihcan and (ii) Tasmat va etasmat va
atmanah akasah sambhutah akasat vdyuh, vayoh agnih,
agneh apah, adbhyah prthivi. . .
The empirical world (vyavaharika jagat) is transformation
effect of Maya.
r
Sahkaracaiya in Vivekacudamani, Verse No. 109,
defined Maya in the following way.
Sannapyasannapyubhayatmika no
bhinapyabhinnpyubhydtmika no
sangapyananga hi ubhayatmikd no
Mahddbhutd anirvacaniyarupa.

Maya is neither real nor unreal nor both; it is neither

undifferentiated nor different, nor both; it neither has parts
nor is partless, nor both. It is supremely wonderful and of an
inexpressible form.

This doctrine has given many the impression that

Sankara claims the empirical world is unreal, illusory, non­
existent. The impression is in need of a great deal of
clarification Sankara never denied that the physical world of
plurality appears real enough to those who live within it. Nor
would Sankara deny that it makes sense to say that the
waking state of consciousness is a public phenomenon and

ill
can be said to be the ‘real world’ in contrast to the ‘private
life’ of the dreaming state. Further, Sankara would agree that
within the physical world individuals may distinguish
between what appears to be the case and what is actually the
r

case. Sankara accepts that a datum that is perceived object is

irreducible to the perceiving subject. Still, there is a level of
experience which transcends the subject-object dualism and
at the level, duality is transcended or sublated. This is no way
alters the fact that the subject and object are correlative terms
and one should never think of retaining the subject while also
reducing the object to the subject. One should never confuse
Advaitavada with various types of subjective idealism. The
self is not a conglomeration of parts, of subjects and objects
somehow reduced to one giant self. Merely because one
imagines that there are one small entity in a universe of
infinite entities does not make it so. Sankara avers that there
is the self — Because one is misled by the diversity of names
and forms, minds and bodies, one imagines multiple selves.
Simply because there are bodies present does not necessarily
mean that one is a body. The body or mind may be like a
room — it is there but one need not live in it all the time.
There is a space within ajar and outside the jar. To identify

112
with the space within the jar and then to declare that one is
limited is a false view of what space is merely because one
identifies does not make it so.

Sankara holds that any thing which is experienced is

real, at one level or another. Therefore his epistemology
suggests that every cognition points to an objective reference
— whether correct or erroneous. The question becomes
exactly how real are things that are experienced in the
empirical world? He replies that the things of the empirical
world are real so long as the empirical order lasts.
'y-j
“Brahmasaksatkaranantaram hi ghatadmarh vadah”

Thus, according to Sankara, the real is that which lasts,

which is uncontradicted (avadhita), which is eternal as well
as unsublatable. Things of the world may be said to be real
until they suffer sublation. Thus, they are called “what is
other than the real or unreal (sadasat vilaksana), illusory
(;mithya), indescribable (anirvacamya). Since they are
cognized, they are not unreal (asat) or fictitious. Since they
are sublated, they are not real (sat). By this criterion,

27 Vedantaparibhasa of Dharmarajadvarlndra, Translated and

Annotated by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashrama Eleventh
Impression, p. 6.

113
Brahman alone is absolutely real, never being subject to
contradiction. All else can be called “real” only by courtesy.
The distinction between one individual and another, the
existence of a plurality of things, the attribution to the
Absolute are all concession to the Truth made from the
relative point of view. However, to bring at the full
implications of the term ‘Advaita’, it should be noted that
such expressions as ‘absolutely real’ and ‘from an absolute
point of view are merely contextual. They are used only by
way of contrast with all that is not real. In no other sense can
Brahman / Atman be called real. The world (Jagat) has only
empirical reality (vyavaharika satta) from relative standpoint.
It is real only to those who have not ralized the Truth those
who have realized the Truth (Falsity of the world as well as
Identity between JTva and Brahman) expressions concerning
the empirical reality lose their significance.

‘ Vedahametam purusam mahantam

Adityavarnarh tamasah parastat
Tameva Viditva ’timrtyumeti
Nanyah Panthd vidyate ’ayandya.’
— Svetasvatara Upanisad, 3/8.

114
I know the great Purusa, who is luminous, like the sun, and
beyond darkness. Only by knowing Him does one pass over
death; there is no other way to the supreme Goal (III.8).

Advaita concept of Jagat (world) may be enunciated as

follows:

The physical world being a mere appearance of

Brahman and having Maya as its substrate, is not real.
Brahman and the world are related as cause and effecting the
same way as rope and the illusory snake are related as cause
and effect. According to Advaita Vedanta, there are two
kinds of material cause — transformative material cause
{parinamyupadana-karana) and transfigurative material
cause (vivartopadana-karana). While clay is the material
cause of pot etc., the latter being a real transformation of the
former. On the other hand, rope is the material cause of the
illusory snake, the latter being but a transfiguration of the
former, without its (the former) undergoing any modification
whatsoever. Clay is thus the transformative cause
(parinamyupadana-karana) of pot etc. whereas rope is the

28 Parinamonama upadanaasamasattaka karyapattih vivartonama

upaddnavisamasattdka karyapattih.
— Vedanta Paribhasa (Dharmarajadhvarlndra)
Translated and Annotated by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita
Ashrama, Eleventh Impression, 2008, p. 49.

115
transfigurative cause (vivartopadana-karana) of the illusory
snake. Rope which does not undergo any change whatsoever,
is said to be the substratum (adhisthana) for the
superimposition of the illusory snake thereon. From the
Advaita point of view, it is the rope-snake relation which best
illustrates the ''Brahman-world-relation'', and not the clay-
pot-relation. The implication is that according to Advaita
metaphysics, Brahman is the transfigurative material cause
(vivartopadana-karana) of the world, and not the
transformative material cause (parinamyupadana karana),
because it does not undergo the least change, It being
changeless, Impartite, Eternal. But even while attributing
material causality to Brahman it needs to be emphasized that
Brahman is not the cause perse of the world but it is rather
Brahman-in-association with Maya that is the actual material
cause thereof.

That the plurality experienced at the empirical level is

not real is proved by Advaita in two ways. Referring to the
illustration of clay and pot given above, the scriptures declare
29
that ‘clear’ alone is real therein (“mrttiketyeva satyam”)

29 Yatha samyaikena mrtpindena sarvarh mrnmayam vijnatam syad

vacarambhanam vikdro namadheyam mrttiketyeva satyam.
— Chdndogya Upanisad, 6.1.4.

116
which implies that pot etc. being a mere product of clay, does
not have a separate identity, and is therefore not real. It may
be noted in this context that even the reality posited to clay is
nothing but relative, for it is real only with reference to its
produces); but with reference to its cause, it has no separate
identity, and is, therefore, not real. And what is true of clay is
true of all material objects all of them have only relative
reality in their character as cause, but as effects, they are
unreal, their actual identity being with their respective cause.
And just as all material causes are ultimately identifiable with
Maya, in like manner the individual selves are also identical
with Brahman, their having separate identity (or reality) of
their own — such is the claim of Advaita Vedanta.

The analysis of cause-effect-relation suggests another

reason to show that the world is not real. The effect, both in
the case of the theories of transformation (Parinamavdda)
and transfiguration (Vivartavada), has no reality or existence
of its own cause. It is evident that there is fundamental
difference between the two theories, Parinamavdda and
Vivartavada, Cause and effect have the same ontological
status in the case of parinama, whereas they have different

117
ontological status in the case of vivarta. We read thus in
Vedanta paribhasa of Dharmarajadvarlndra.

Parinamo nama upadana samasattaka karydpattih,

Vivarto nama upadana visamasattaka karydpattih

Clay is empirically real, and the pot which is a

modification of clay is also empirically real in the sense that
both of them possess empirical reality (■vydvaharika-satta).
The position is different in the case of vivarta. While rope
has empirical reality (vyavaharika satta), the rope-snake has
only apparent reality (pratibhasika satta). It means that cause
and effect in this case do not have the same ontological status
because of the difference between vyavaharika satta and
pratibhasika satta. Notwithstanding this basic difference
between these two kinds of cause-effect-relation, the effect in
both the cases is imaginary (kalpita) or unreal (asatya) or
illusory (mithya), and so it has no reality or existence of its
own apart from the reality or existence of its cause. Since the
pluralistic universe is an effect of Brahman (through Maya),
it is not real.

30 Translated and Annotated' by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita

Ashrama, Eleventh Impression, 2008, Pratyaksa pariccheda, p. 49.

118
 It is said to be mithya (illusory). It cannot, therefore, be
reckoned as real in addition to Brahman.
Ekaikam jalam vahudha vikurvann-
asmin ksetre samharatyesa devah
Bhuyah srstva patayastathesah
sarvadhipatyam kurute mahatma.
r
— Svetasvatara Upanisad, 5/3.

At the time of the creation the Lord spreads out individual

nets (body, mind, senses and prana) in various ways, and
then [at the time of the cosmic dissolution] withdraws them
into the great Prakrti. Again, the all-pervading Deity creates
the aggregates of body and senses, both individual and
collective, and their controllers also and thus exercises His
overlordship. There are also many other Sruti texts
enunciating the nature of world - Sruti texts are as follows —

Yastantunabha iva tantubhih pradhanajaih Svabhavatah

Deva ekah svamavrnot sa no dadhatu Brahmapyayam //

— May the non-dual Lord, who, by the power of His Maya,

covered Himself, like a spider, with threads drawn from
primal matter (pradhana) merge us in Brahman.
— Svetasvatara Upanisad, 6.10.

119
Levels of Reality:
Advaita Vedanta, presented mainly in the Upanisads,
asserts that it is the self-established or axiomatic ultimate
principle of illumination — the principle of revelation called
r

in Sanskrit ‘bodha ‘ or prakasa which is svaia-siddha (self-

established) and svaprakasa2 1 (the supreme light itself)
sva-eva-prakasa. If this supreme light — called svayam
jyotih — be not admitted, then all proofs, testimonies,
verifications become meaningless because they cannot reveal
anything. Proofs or testimonies mean source or means by
which some truth is brought into our consciousness. If there
were no consciousness cit, caitannya — admitted as a
revealing principle, proofs or testimonies would become
meaningless. So there must be some svayam siddhah
svaprakasa, bodha or prakasa as the axiomatic base-rock of
all testimonies. This svayam-siddha, svaprakasa, bodha or
consciousness is the Ultimate Reality (Brahman) —
independent and imperishable, immutable — as expressed in
the works of Sankaracarya — ‘Idam tu kutastham

31 Paranchi khani vyatrinat svayambhustasmatparan pasyati

nantaratman — Kathopanisad (2.1.1)

120
parmarthikam nirapeksam’. 3'2 This Atman as bodha is the
unchangeable absolute Reality, independent of anything else.
r

Sankara coined this unique Reality in the words of

Upanisadic text ‘Saksadaparoksat Brahman’.33 The greatest
and the highest Reality (Brahman) is of the nature of direct
perception itself. Though supported by the strongest highest
arguments, the conception of such (this) Reality first came
from the words of the Upanisads for which it is designated as
‘ Tvaupanisadam purusam prcchamf .34

Sankaracarya propounds Brahman as Parmarthika satta

(Absolute or uncontradicted Reality). According to him,
‘abadhitatva’ (Being uncontradicted) is the criterion of
reality. He is called kevaladvaitavadin simply, because he
recognises Brahman as the only Reality and all others as
■*3 c
mithyd (false). But reflection shows that the crux of his
philosophical system arises out of the situation that all other
things some external like a sense-organ (the eye or the ear)
and some external objects (ajar etc.) are established through

"XO r
Brahmasutra, Sankarabhasya, 1.1.4.
33 Brahaddranyaka Upanisad, 3.4.1.
34 Ibid. 3.9.26.
35 Slokardhena pravaksyami yaduktam granthakotibhih
Brahma satyarh Jagatmithyd Jiva Brahmaivanaparah
— Brahmajhanavalimala, Verse 20.

121
testimonies or pramana-s like perception, inference or verbal
knowledge etc. and as such they are pramana-siddha.

In order to reconcile these apparently, seeming

r

contradictory positions Sankaracarya introduced sattva-

traividhyavada (three levels of reality). This doctrine of
sattatrividhyavada was mainly based on maya or ajnana
which formed the key-concept of Advaitism. This ajnana
plays a great role in Advaita Vedanta since it is considered as
a great power, ‘saktv constituted of three gunas — sattva,
rajas and tamas. The Advaitins call ajnana as factual source
of all creation and source of time, space and causation.
Advaitins define ajnana not merely as absence of knowledge
but also as a positive force which can veil truths (,avarana)
and project (viksepa) items. It is neither definable as sat
(existent) nor as asat (non-existent). Neither sat (existent)
because of its change and destruction nor a-sat (non-existent)
because it is felt as existing and meets destruction. A non­
existent like barren woman’s son is never felt as existing nor
can it be destroyed. So ajnana is defined as “sadasadbhyama-
nirvachariiyam.”36 But jnana or knowledge according to

36 Ajnanarh tu sadasadbhyam anirvacamyam trigunatmakam

jndnavirodhi, bhavarupam yat kihcit iti vadanti, “aham ajnah ”

122
Advaita Vedanta is essentially pure consciousness, bodha or
prakasa — though we generally call it knowledge or jnana-
cognitions with many impositions and limitations upon that
consciousness. The main adjunct or imposition is of a mental
*XH
modification, antahkaranavrtti, which manifests the
consciousness so as to have its function of revealing or
illumining and also providing a form in the consciousness so
that pleasure or pain may be perceived by the saksin. So
broadly speaking, knowledge, according to Advaita Vedanta,
has two aspects or parts: (1) the mental modification in the
form of the object of knowledge, and (2) the revelation or,
illumination of the object by the consciousness reflected or
manifested in the mentalmodification. In the case of knowing
a jar the ignorance covering the jar is removed by the
modification in the form of a ‘jar’, but still the jar is not
revealed unless the consciousness behind (manifested in the
modification) reveals the ‘jar’ which is by nature nescient,
jada. Vidvaranya, the author of PancadasT has expressed this

ityadianubhavat “Devatmasaktim Svagunaih nigudam.”

[Svet. Up. 1/3] ityadi sratesca (Vedantasara, Sadananda)
5*7
"

“ Vrittau jnanatvopacaraK’
— Vedantaparibhdsa Dharmarajadhvarlndra.
Translated and Annotated by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita
Ashrama, Eleventh Impression, 2008, Pratyaksa Pariceheda, p. 6.

123
very pointedly; “Tatrajhanam dhiya nasyet abhasena ghatah
sphuret” (.Pancadasi, VIII.9) The mental modification
removes the ignorance and the reflection of consciousness
illumines the jar.

Now a philosophical question may arise that the

admission of the 4svayam-siddhcC or axiomatic Ultimate
Reality as bodha or prakdsa (the principle of illumination),
and many others such as pramana-siddha or verified facts
and also false objects or illusion etc. involves dichotomy or
pluralism. How then we can admit non-dualism. An
Advaitavadin’s definite answer is that because all others
narrated or admitted being false — neither existent, nor non­
existent do not at all disturb non-dualism of the Ultimate
Reality, just as the second moon seen by the stretched eyes
does not disturb the oneness of the real moon. All others are
only proved by testimonies and so are dependent facts to
serve our practical usages and purposes.

Those who are very much addicted to or interested in

the dual world may be satisfied by a statement of
Madhusudana Saraswati that though the dual world is false, it
is not useless.38 We get the means of realizing this non-dual

38 Advaita Siddhi by Madhusudana Saraswati, 1.1

124
reality only through understanding the falsity and variety of
the dual world. We get the Sastras, the guru (preceptor), the
sadhanas of sravana, manana and nididhydsana from this
false world. Therefore, Madhusudana Saraswati declares
clearly — ‘Dvaitamithydtva-jndnapurvakatvat advaita-
siddhih’, i.e. the ascertainment of non-dualism depends on
the ascertainment of the falsity of this dual world. It is
interesting to mention here that Vedantist Vidyaranya, the
author of the PancadasT has given a very interesting and
poetic statement about the false world and its cause maya.
Tuccha anirvacamya ca vastavT cetyasau tridhd
Jneya maya tribhirbodhaih shrautayauktika laukikaih
PancadasT, (6.130)

This maya (and its projections) are significant (tuccha) and

also not describable as existent or non-existent —
‘anirvacamya.ca’ and real (fact) vastavi ca, according to the
three kinds of experience or view points of Sruti, yukti
(reason) and practical usage (vyavahara). It will be convient
for us to classify Sankara’s exact conception of non-dualism
(advaitavada) if we survey the levels of reality admitted by
him.

125
 The lowest of these levels is ‘Tuccha Satta5
(insignificant being) e.g. sky-lotus. They are imaginary and
insignificant (,alika). They have no epistemic reference i.e.
they are absolutely unreal. Apart from this tuccha satta
r

Sankara introduces three grades of reality (satta-

traividhyavada)

1) Pratibhasika satta (apparent reality) 2) Vyavaharika satta

(empirical reality) 3) Pdramarthika satta (transcendental
reality).

Let us clarify three levels serially.

The Pratibhasika satta is called apparent being e.g. ‘a snake

in a rope’. The cognition ‘this is a snake5 is sublated by a
later cognition of empirical or pragmatic being (vyavaharika
satta). Apparent existence exists to a person at the time of
perceiving it. The snake in snake-rope illusion has this form
of existence. The next higher level is pragmatic or empirical
being (vyavaharika Satta) e.g. pots. The pragmatic being is
contradicted by realization of “self5. uBrahmasdksat-
karanantaram hi ghatadinam vadah39 The highest level is

39 Vedanta Paribhasa by Dharmarajadvarlndra

Translated and Annotated by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita
Ashrama, Eleventh Impression, 2008, Pratyaksa pariccheda, p. 6.

126
Brahmasatta. Brahman is the ultimate reality, the only reality
(Paramarthikasatta i.e. Avadhitasatta).

The pratibhasika satta is negated by the knowledge of

Vyavaharika satta and Vyavaharika satta is negated by
knowledge of paramarthika satta (.Brahma jndna). Different
apparent objects {pratibhasika satta) have existence of the
same nature (svasamana satta), as different empirical objects
{vyavaharika satta) have also the same status.

But apparent existence, empirical existence and

transcendental existence are visamasattaka in the sense that
their existence is dissimilar. Adoption of the theory of the
three degrees of truth or Reality is a very unique concept in
Sankara’s philosophy. Practically speaking this theory led
Sankaracarya to reconcile the apparent contradictions in Sruti
Texts of Upanisads.

The Paramarthika-satta (the Highest Truth, as it is in

Itself, taught by the sruti-s) is enunciated in sruti-s.

Vyavaharikasatta (Truth as it has manifested in the

phenomenal universe, the basis of all our relations, thoughts
and activities) is also enunciated in Vadantasdra by
Sadananda as follows —

127
 Asarpabhutayarh rajju sarparopavat
vastuni avastu arupah adhydropah

In each of these, the conceptual notion of the later one is

sublated when the true knowledge of the earlier one arises.
Because of this threefold scheme of the view of Reality,
r

Sankara was able to harmonize all our experiences, sacred

and secular (vaidika and laukika) which enriched his writings
with modernness which was unique. Sankara made some
distinction between the pratibhasika and vyavaharika worlds.
The ‘silver in the nacre’ is false; the actual experienced world
is also false. The pratibhasika world is daily sublated but the
vyavaharika or phenomenal world is not so. it is negated only
when true knowledge of Brahman arises.40 Again, the former
is purely private while the latter is common to all. While
discussing the dream world Sankara used the word ‘maya-
matram’. It means that the dream world is pratibhasika
(Bhasya on Brahma-sutra 3 II.3) According to Advaita
Vedanta, both the phenomenal (vyavaharika) e.g. nacre and
the apparent (pratibhasika) ‘Silver in the nacre’ are
modifications of avidya, both are superimposed on the self,

40 Bhidyate hrdayagranthiscchidyante sarvasarhsayah

Kstyante casyakarmani Tasmin drste pardvare.
— Mundaka Upanisad, 2.2.8.

128
and both are regarded as false. But how are we to distinguish
between the two? The reply is — vyavaharika reality is due
to avidya only, while pratibhasika reality is due to avidya and
some other kind of dosa (disease or deficiency of the eye
etc.).

The Advaitins hold that though there is no real silver

here, some kind of silver is produced for the time being. The
Naiyayikas hold that there is no need of admitting the
creation of the silver. Illusion is due to erroneous judgement.
The Advaita Vedantin’s reply is that the illusory silver must
be presented before, for we actually perceive it. To avert this
difficulty, the Naiyayikas say that the real silver that is
elsewhere is the object of perception only because the
memory of silver acts as the alaukika sannikarsa or some
kind of extraordinary sensuous relation (fnanalaksana-
pratydsatti). The Nyaya theory of illusion is also termed as
‘Anyathdkhyati

It may be asked by the critic of the Advaita Vedanta

that if the silver is present before (for it is created for the time
being), why should only one person see it? The Advaita
Vedantin’s reply is that both the perception and the
production of the ‘apparent silver’ are due to avidya (and

129
some kind of dosa or defect) which clings to an individual
Jlva and this is the reason that accounts for the private
character of the illusory object. Advaita Vedantin’s theory is
named as ‘Anirvacanlyakhyati ’. This theory is propagated by
them in order to explain erroneous knowledge. In erroneous
knowledge an object appears and it is neither real as it is later
on sublated not unreal as it is presented. So in erroneous
knowledge, according to Advaita Vedanta, the object we
know is indescribable either as real or as unreal. So, the
object of erroneous knowledge is indescribable khyati means
knowledge, so erroneous knowledge will be a khyati or ,
knowledge which has an object as anirvacanlya. Thus,
erroneous knowledge is anirvacanlya khyati. The perception
of a snake in the place of a rope is taken as a case of
erroneous knowledge. In this case the object of knowledge is
a snake, which is not real as it disappears when light is
brought to bear on the scene. And it is not unreal as it is
presented. So, the object of erroneous knowledge being
indescribable, the erroneous knowledge is anirvacanlya
khyati. The Advaitins hold that even in erroneous knowledge
an object appears which is a product of ajnana. In ordinary
erroneous perception the object is apparent (pratibhasika)

130
and the locus is empirical (vyavaharika). But in the case of
the knowledge of the world which is vyavaharika, the
indescribability of the world is negated only when the
ultimate locus, which is Brahman, is realized.

Brahmasaksatkaranantararh hi ghatadmam vadhah, “yatra

tuasya sarvamatmaivdbhut tat kena hath parsyet” iti sruteh.
Na tu sansaradasayam vadhah, "Yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati
taditara itaram pasyatF iti sruteh.41

It is only after the realisation of Brahman that a jar etc

are contradicted, for the sruti says, “But when to the knower
of Brahman everything has become the self, then what would
one see and through what?” (Br, IV.V.15); but they are not
contradicted in the transmigratory state for the Sruti says,
“Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees
something” (ibid).

We may note here that Madhusudana Sarasvatl,

explains the whole problem of falsity in a different way. He
says that ‘idam’ means 4pratibhasika silver’ and 4rajatam’
means 4vyavaharika silver\ When we arrive at a true
knowledge, we say 4Nedam rajatam’. It means that there is

41 Vedantaparibhasa Dharmarajadvarindra. Translated and Annotated

by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashrama, Eleventh Impression,
May, 2009, Pratyaksa Pariccheda, p. 6.

131
reciprocal difference (<anyonyabhava) between ‘this’ or
‘pratibhasika’ silver and 'rajatam ’ or ‘vyavaharika’ silver.
The identification of the two is wrong. Mutual negation is to
be understood, when the two words are of the same case-
ending-as in the case of ‘idam rajatam na’ (this is not silver).
Although mutual negation is meant by ‘this is not silver’,
indirectly it comes to signify falsity of silver.
Tathacedamsabdanirdiste purovarti-pratltika-rajate rajata-
sabdanirdistavydvahdrikarajatanyonyd-havapratJterdrthikam
mithyatvam (Advaitasiddhi). Mithyatva or falsity thus means
traikalikanisedha-pratiyogitvam. That which does not exist at
all in its substratum is to be regarded as false. The apparent
silver is false, for it does not exist (at any time) in its
substratum shell, and the relation of identity between the two
(previously cognised) is also absent for all time. So also is the
world false. The world continues to appear so long as its
locus is not directly realised. The moment the substratum
Brahman is directly experienced the world turns into absolute
naught, as after correction of illusion the false silver vanishes
into nothing. Brahman is thus the ground (adhisthana) of the
world. But some would object to this and say that in ordinary
psychologied illusion as ‘idam rajatamthe knowledge of

132
‘Idam ’ as a thing is only of a general and indefinite nature;
for it is perceived as a thing; for it is perceived as a thing but
its special characteristic as. nacre is not noticed, thus illusion
is possible. But in Brahman, there are neither definite nor
indefinite characteristics of only kind, hence it cannot be the
ground of illusion. The reply is — when Brahman stands as
adhisthana of the world appearance, its characteristics as sat
are manifested, whereas pure and infinite bliss is not noticed.

Another objection is raised against the position of the

Advaita Vedanta that since Jagat serves all practical
purposes; it is real. But the Advaita Vedantist would reply
that a false thing can also serve practical purposes as ‘a snake
in the rope’ can cause fear, etc. Again, in dreams also, we feel
happy or sad. Vacaspati also holds in his ‘Bhamatf that
4arthakriyakaritva’ cannot be the criterion of reality, for that
would imply duality. In the case of relation between Brahman
and the world, the world is illusorily superimposed on
Brahman due to mdyd or avidyd. Superimposition (adhyasa)
which is the outcome of maya explains the pivotal principle
of Sankara’s philosophy. Sankaracarya explains this concept
of adhyasa (superimposition) in the beginning of his
commentary, ‘Bhasya prarambha’

133
“ Yusmadasmat-pratyayagocarayorvisayavisayinoh tamah
prakasavat viruddhasvabhavayoh itaretarabhavanupapattau
siddhdydm tad dharmanamapi sutardmitaretarabhavdnu-
papattiriti atah asmatpratyayagocare visayini cidatmake
yusmatpratyayagocarasya visayasya taddharmanahca
adhyasah tadviparyayena visayinah tad dharmananca
visaye adhyaso mithyeti bhavitum yuktam. Tathapi
anyonyasmin anyonydtmakatam anyonyadharmatsca-
dhyasya itaretaravivekenatyanta viviktayoh dharma-
dharminoh mithyajnanamimittah satyanrte mithuni-
krtyahamidarh mamedamiti naisargikah ayarh
lokvyavaharah. ”

It being an established fact that the object and the

subject, that are fit to be the contents of the concepts ‘you’
and ‘we’ (respectively), and are by nature as contradictory
as light and darkness, cannot logically have any identity, it
follows that their attributes can have it still less.
Accordingly, the “you” and its attributes on the subject that
is conscious by nature and is referable through the concept
“we” (should be impossible) and contrariwise
superimposition of the subject and its attributes on the object
should be impossible. Nevertheless, owing to an absence of
discrimination between these attributes, as also between
substances, which are absolutely disparate, there continues a

134
natural human behaviour based on self-identification in the
form of “I am this” or “This is mine”. This behaviour has for
its material cause an unreal nescience and man resorts to it
by mixing up reality with unreality as a result of
superimposing the things themselves or their attributes on
each other.

Sankara again holds in ‘Bhasyaprarambha’ — “Aha-kah

ayam adhyasa ndmeti. Ucyate-Smrtirupah paratra
purvadrstavabhasah tarn kecidanyatranyadharmadhyasa iti
vadanti. Kecittu-yatra yadadhyasastadvivekagraha
nivandhano bhrama iti. Anye tu yatra yadadhyasah tasyaiva
viparitadharmatva kalpanamacaksaie sarvathdpi tu anyasya
anyadharmavabhasatam na vyabhicrati tatha ca loke
r

anubhavah — Suktika hi rajatavat avabhasate, ekascandrah

sadvitviyavaditi.”

If it be asked, “what is it that is called

superimposition?” — the answer is: It is an awareness,
similar in nature to memory, that arises on a different
(foreign), basis as a result of some past experience with
regard to this, some say that it consists in the superimposition
of the attributes of one thing on another. But others assert
that wherever a superimposition on anything occurs, there is

135
in evidence only a confusion arising from the absence of
discrimination between them. Others say that the
superimposition of anything on any other substratum consists
in fancying some opposite attributes on that very basis. From
every point of view, however, there is no difference as
regards the appearance on one thing as something else. And
in accord with this we find in common experience that the
nacre appears as silver, and a single moon appears as two.
r
Mainly on this notion of maya or avidya Sankaracarya’s
sattatraividyavada (levels of reality) is advocated.

With regard to the cause of the world, there are

divergence of opinions among the Vedantists.

(1) The author of Samksepasariraka says that pure Brahman

is the upadana or causal substance of the world.

“Brahmaiva upadanam kutasthasya svatah karanatva-

nupapatteh maya dvara karafiam”42 (Brahman being
unchangeable, cannot directly be the cause of the world.
It becomes so thought the intervention of maya).

(2) According to the Vivarana, Brahman associated with

mdya is the cause of the world.43

42 siddhantalesa, chow ed. pp. 75-76.

43 Ibid. p. 59.

136
(3) Some hold that the world is the parinama
(transformation) of maya of Isvara, but mind etc are the
parinama of avidya associated with Jiva. So Isvara is
the cause of the akdsa and other things, while Jiva is the
cause of the mind etc.44

(4) Others hold that Isvara is the cause of the vyavaharika

world and the Jiva of the pratibhasika world.45

(5) Others are of opinion that the Jiva projects everything

from Isvara downwards — just as he conjures up the
a *r

dream- world.

(6) Vacaspati Misra thinks that Brahman is the cause of the

world through maya associate with the Jiva. Maya is thus
the auxiliary agent by which Brahman appears in the eye
of the Jiva as many.47 The world is the vivarta of
Brahman which is the object of Jlvdsriia ajhana. The
author Vedanta Paribhasa agrees with this view in
holding Brahman as the vivarta causal matter and maya
the prinama causal matter of the world. The author holds
that Brahman’s ‘upadanatvam’ is ‘jagadadhyasa-

44 Ibid. p. 68
45 Ibid. p. 69.
46 Ibid. pp. 70-71.
47 Ibid. p. 77.

137
 dhisthanatvam’ or ‘jagadakarena parinamyamana-
mayadhisthanatvam

(8) The author of PancadasT says that Brahman viewed in

relation to the ‘tamas aspect of maya is the upadana
cause; in relation to the ‘sattva ’ aspect is the efficient
cause.
Jagato yadupadanam mayamaddya tamasim
Noimittam sudhasattvam tamueyaie Brahma tadgira
— PancadasT 1-44
/ M
(9) Sankara explicitly says that Isvara or Brahman associated
with maya is both the efficient and the material cause of
the world. In opposition to Sankara who points out that
the non-intelligent Prakrti cannot be the cause of the
world. He propounds the teleological and other
arguments against the Sankara. How is it that the aeetana
_ r

Jagat comes out of the Isvaral Sankara gives the

example of hair, nail etc. produced by the living purusa
(Brahmasutra, ‘Drsyate tu, 2.16)

We may conclude that Brahman associated with maya

is the cause of the world. The world is the vivarta of
Brahman and parinama of maya. By 4 vivarta * it is meant that
the cause and the effect have different grades of reality

138
(satta), and ‘parinama ’ indicates that they have the same
grade of reality. “Parindmo nama Upadanasamasattakah
karyapattih vivarta nama Upadanavisama sattakakaryapattih
(Vedanta paribhasa of, Dharmaraj advarmdra)

The whole journey of pragmatic outlook

(vyavaharikata) is exhausted when cessation of maya /
ajnana is possible at the dawn of Brahmasaksdtkara i.e.,
aparoksdnubhuti (Realization of Brahma). Thus Sankara
writes,
Suddhadvayabrahma vivodhanasya
sarpabhramo rajjuvivekato yathd.

— Vivekacudamani, Verse, 110.

With these prerequisites, let us see what are the main

arguments of the theorists of ‘DrstisrstV in the next chapter.

139