Four Basic Principles of Advaita Vedanta

Swami Bhajanananda

dvaita Vedanta is the dominant and most mid with Advaita occupying its pinnacle. Awell-known school of Indian philosophy. In Vedanta, however, is not a mere view of Reality; Indian culture darśana is the word which it is also a way of life—not ordinary life, but spir- corresponds to the Western idea of ‘philosophy’. itual life. Its aim is to enable human beings to solve Darśana literally means vision or insight. There the existential problems of life, transcend human are six darśanas, each of which provides a par- limitations, go beyond suffering, and attain su- ticular view of, or insight into, Reality. From the preme fulfilment and peace. Although there are standpoint of the principle of harmony taught by six darśanas, Vedanta alone has remained the phil- Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda, the six osophy of the Hindu religious tradition from very darśanas may be regarded as forming a six-tiered ancient times to the present day. Of the different pyramid, the tiers providing higher and higher views schools of Vedanta, Advaita has for its domain the of Reality, with Vedanta as the topmost tier. Ved- mainstream Hinduism, whereas the other schools anta itself consists of several schools. These schools of Vedanta are associated with the different sects of Vedanta may also be visualized as forming a pyra- of Hinduism.

BRAHMAN IS THE Advaita SOLE REALITY (Individual selves are either real or Vishishtadvaita illusory distinctions within Brahman) vedanta Monism Shuddhadvaita ( ) Achintya-bhedabheda Bhedabheda Dvaita yoga PURUSHA + PRAKRITI sankhya (Dualism) mimamsa nyaya ATMAN + 8 DRAVYAS vaisheshika (Pluralism)

The author is Assistant Secretary, Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission. PB January 2010 9 28 Prabuddha Bharata Preliminary Considerations norance, in order to explain the origin of the Before taking up a study of the basic principles universe and the existence of duality in the phe- of Advaita Vedanta it is necessary to keep in nomenal world without affecting the non-dual mind two points. One is the distinction between nature of Brahman. Advaita as an experience and Advaita as a phil- iii) Post-Shankara Advaita · This phase ex- osophy. As a direct transcendental spiritual experi- tends over a long period, from the ninth century ence, Advaita marks the highest point of spiritual to the sixteenth. The writers on Advaita Ved- realization a human being can attain. In that cli- anta of this period include eminent thinkers like mactic experience the distinction between the Padmapada, Sureshwara, Vachaspati, Prakasha- individual and the cosmic is lost, and the distinc- tman, Vimuktatman, Sarvajnatman, Sriharsha, tions between the knower, the thing known, and Chitsukha, Madhusudana, and others, who knowledge disappear. It is ‘Advaita as experience’ added several new concepts into the philosoph- that forms the main theme of the Upanishads. ical framework of Advaita Vedanta. During this ‘Advaita as a philosophy’ is a conceptual frame- period Advaita Vedanta split into three streams or work that attempts to explain how the impersonal schools. These are: (a) the Vartika school, based on Absolute appears as the phenomenal world and in- the views of Sureshwara; (b) the Vivarana school, dividual selves. The twelfth-century Advaita writer based on the views of Padmapada and Prakash- Sriharsha says in the introduction to his famous atman; and (c) the Bhamati school, based on the work Khandana-khanda-khadya that the purpose views of Vachaspati Mishra. The philosophy of of philosophy, śāstrārtha, is to determine the na- Advaita underwent great refinement and intel- ture of truth, tattva-nirṇaya, and victory over the lectual sophistry during the post-Shankara phase. opponent, vādi-vijaya. Acharya Shankara himself However, the focus of discussions shifted from devotes a considerable part of his commentaries Brahman to maya or ajñāna. to refuting the views of opponents. In the present iv) The Modern Phase of Advaita · The mod- article we confine our discussion to the philosoph- ern phase in the development of Advaita Vedanta ical aspect of Advaita. was inaugurated by Sri Ramakrishna and Swami The second point to be kept in mind is that, al- Vivekananda. They introduced several important though Advaita philosophy is built on the immut- changes in the understanding of Advaita in order to able and indestructible foundation of timeless truths make it more relevant to the needs and conditions and laws, its superstructure of concepts underwent of the modern world. Some of the changes brought several changes during different periods in the his- about by them are briefly stated below. tory of Hinduism. Four main phases may be seen in (a) The experiential aspect of Vedanta has come the development of Advaita philosophy. to be stressed, as it was during the Vedic period, i) Advaita of the Upanishads · As stated more than the philosophical aspect. earlier, this is the experiential aspect of Advaita. (b) Harmony of the Advaitic view with the ii) Advaita of Shankara · It is well known views of other schools of Vedanta has been estab- that the edifice of Advaita philosophy, which lished by accepting all views as representing differ- towers over all other systems of philosophy, was ent stages in the realization of Brahman. This has built by Acharya Shankara in the eighth cen- put an end to unnecessary polemical attacks and tury. Shankara’s main endeavour was to establish sectarian squabbles within the fold of Vedanta. the non-dual nature of Brahman as the ultimate (c) The older form of Advaita gave greater im- Reality. His most original contribution, however, portance to the transcendent aspect of Brahman, was the introduction of the concept of a cosmic whereas the new view on Advaita gives greater im- negative principle known as maya or ajñāna, ig- portance to the immanent aspect. 10 PB January 2010 Four Basic Principles of Advaita Vedanta 29 (d) Swami Vivekananda found immense prac- (iii) ajñāna as the conjoint cause of the world; and tical significance for Advaita Vedanta in solving the (iv) the non-duality of Consciousness. individual and collective problems of day-to-day The Illusoriness of Individuality life. Swamiji has shown how Advaitic knowledge can serve as the basis of morality, basis of inner By Advaita is meant the non-duality of Brahman, strength and courage, and as the basis for social or rather the denial of duality in Brahman. The cen- justice and equality as well. Above all, Advaita pro- tral concept of Vedanta darśana is that Brahman is vides the basis for Sri Ramakrishna’s message of ‘ser- the ultimate cause of the universe and the ultimate vice to man as service to God’, śivajñāne jīva-sevā, Reality. This is accepted by all schools of Vedanta— which Swami Vivekananda popularized as the new dualistic as well as non-dualistic. What then is the gospel of social service. All the service activities of difference between Dvaita and Advaita? One basic the Ramakrishna Math and Mission are inspired by difference is that according to dualistic schools in- this gospel of service. dividuality is real and persists even in the state of (e) Swami Vivekananda has brought about the mukti, whereas in Advaita individuality is unreal reconciliation of Advaita Vedanta with modern sci- and does not persist in the state of mukti. Shankara ence. Furthermore, Swamiji showed that Vedanta says: ‘What is called jiva is not absolutely different itself is a science—the science of consciousness. from Brahman. Brahman itself, being conditioned (f ) Swamiji isolated the universal principles of by adjuncts such as buddhi, intellect, and the like, Advaita Vedanta from the mythological, institu- comes to be called “doer” and “experiencer”. ’1 ‘The tional, and cultic aspects of its parent matrix in difference between the individual self and the su- Hinduism and converted the universal principles preme Self is due to the presence of limiting ad- of Advaita into a universal religion—which in the juncts, such as the body, which are set up by names modern idiom means universal spirituality—for and forms and are created by avidyā; there is actu- all humanity. ally no difference.’2 The philosophical presuppositions and meta- In the dualistic schools the word ‘Atman’ is used physical underpinnings and implications of this to refer only to the individual self, and not to Brah- ‘Neo-Vedanta’, which is better called ‘Integral Ved- man. When the Atman identifies itself with mind anta’, are yet to be worked out, or even studied, and body, it is called jiva. In the state of mukti properly. Everything goes to show that the prin- this identification disappears, but the Atman, al- ciples of Vedanta developed by Swami Vivekananda though it becomes almost similar to Brahman, re- are likely to have a great impact on world thought, mains distinct and separate from Brahman. Here, global culture, and human progress in the coming the relationship between Atman and Brahman is decades and centuries of the third millennium. an organic relationship, like that between the part The aim of the present article is to explicate and the whole. The type of difference that exists be- the main principles of Advaita Vedanta developed tween Brahman and the individual selves is known during the post-Shankara period. A proper under- as svagata-bheda.3 standing of these basic principles is necessary to Advaita denies svagata-bheda in Brahman. understand and evaluate the status, influence, and According to Advaita, in the state of mukti the possibilities of Vedanta in the modern world and Atman does not remain distinct from Brahman the contributions made to it by Sri Ramakrishna but becomes one with it. In fact, there is no dis- and Swami Vivekananda. tinction between Atman and Brahman; as soon as Post-Shankara Advaita Vedanta rests on four the identification with mind and body disappears, foundational principles: (i) the illusoriness of the distinction between Atman and Brahman also jīvatva, individuality; (ii) a two-level reality; disappears. Hence, Advaitins use the terms Atman PB January 2010 11 30 Prabuddha Bharata and Brahman interchangeably. The common answer, based on a superficial We may conclude this section with a statement understanding of Advaita, is that Brahman alone made by Krishnachandra Bhattacharya, one of the is real whereas the world is unreal, and the causal original thinkers and great scholars of Indian phil- relationship between the two is also illusory. This osophy of the twentieth century: ‘The illusoriness kind of statement is usually nothing more than par- of the individual self is apparently the central no- roting without any deep thinking. How can we re- tion of Advaita Vedanta. Every vital tenet of the gard as illusory this unimaginably complex world philosophy—Brahman as the sole reality, the object which almost all people perceive to be real? When as false, Māyā as neither real nor unreal, Iśvara as we actually see an illusion, such as mistaking a rope Brahman in reference to Māyā, mokṣa (liberation) for a snake, it takes only a little time for us to realize through knowledge of Brahman and as identity that it is an illusion. Moreover, the snake seen on a with Brahman—may be regarded as an elaboration rope does not bite, the water seen in a mirage does of this single notion.’4 not slake our thirst. But the world we live in, which gives us innumerable types of joyful and painful ex- A Two-level Reality periences, challenges, changes, relationships, end- The most crucial problem in Advaita Vedanta is less events, quest for meaning, and so on, cannot to explain the coexistence of two entirely differ- be dismissed so easily as illusory. ent and incompatible entities, Brahman and the Shankara’s solution to the problem of the coex- world. Brahman is infinite Consciousness, which is istence and cause-and-effect relation between non- nirguṇa, absolutely devoid of all attributes. What dual Brahman and the finite world was to posit a Brahman is cannot be expressed in words. The Upa- two-level reality. One level is pāramārthika-sattā, nishadic definition ‘Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, absolute Reality; this is what Brahman is. The other Infinity’5 is only a symbolic indicator, lakṣana, not is vyāvahārika-sattā, empirical or relative reality; a true description, of the real nature of Brahman. this is what the world is. But then, how can there be The infinite, the indivisible,the attributeless can- two kinds of reality? It is clear that the term ‘reality’ not be characterized in terms of finite categories. needs proper understanding. As Sri Ramakrishna used to say, ‘Brahman is the Empirical Level · Whatever is experienced only thing which has never become ucchiṣṭa, that directly through the senses, pratyakṣa, is true and is, defiled by human mouth’. Brahman is the sole real, at least as long as the experience lasts. Our Reality. The Upanishads declare: ‘All this is Brah- senses have limitations, we may have wrong percep- man’; ‘There is no multiplicity here.’6 tions, but science and technology enable us to over- However, the Upanishads and Brahma Sutra come the deceptions of the senses and gain correct also regard Brahman as the cause of the universe. knowledge. The acquisition of enormous power by All schools of Vedanta hold that Brahman is both the application of the knowledge gained through the material cause, upādāna-kāraṇa, and the effi- the senses itself is the pragmatic proof of the reality cient cause, nimitta kāraṇa, of the world. The world, of the world. What billions of people have directly which is material in nature, consists of countless liv- experienced for thousands of years cannot be dis- ing and non-living beings, is ever changing, and is missed as unreal. Thus, from the standpoint of characterized by dualities such as heat and cold, direct empirical experience, the world is real. joy and pain; it is, in every way, the opposite of But the authoritative scriptures known as the Brahman. How can two totally dissimilar and in- Upanishads declare Brahman to be the sole reality. compatible entities, Brahman and the world, have Moreover, great thinkers like Nagarjuna have, any causal relationship at all? If Brahman is the sole through arguments, shown that the world we see reality, how and where can the world exist? is unreal. 12 PB January 2010 Four Basic Principles of Advaita Vedanta 31 This leads to the untenable proposition that krishna has expressed the same idea in his own the world is both real and unreal, which is self- simple way as nitya and līla. This two-level theory contradictory. If the world is sat, real, it cannot be is often compared to Nagarjuna’s theory of two asat, unreal, and vice versa. From this contradiction levels of truth: samvṛti satya, conventional truth, the Advaitin concludes that the world is different and paramārtha satya, absolute truth. There is from both sat and asat; it is sad-asad-vilakṣaṇa. no doubt that Shankara was influenced by Naga- Such a fact defies the laws of logical thinking; rjuna’s dialectic, but the former went far ahead and hence, it is anirvacanīya. Another word used in the built a mighty philosophical edifice by integrat- same sense is mithyā. In common parlance mithyā ing Nagarjuna’s dialectical approach into brahma- means illusion or falsehood, but in Advaita Vedanta mīmāṁsā, the philosophy of Brahman. There are, it means something ‘mysterious’. The termsmithyā , however, basic differences between the two-level anirvacanīya, and sad-asad-vilakṣaṇa are treated theory of Shankara and that of Nagarjuna. In the as more or less synonymous; they describe what is first place, Nagarjuna’s theory pertains to truth known as vyāvahārika-sattā. It is Brahman appear- in general, whereas Shankara’s theory covers the ing as the world under the influence of its mysteri- whole of reality. Secondly, Nagarjuna’s approach ous power known as maya or ajñāna. is mostly negative and is based solely on logic, Absolute Level · Brahman remains in its true whereas Shankara’s approach is positive and keeps nature as non-dual, infinite awareness at the higher Vedantic scriptures at the forefront. Again, Naga- level of reality known as pāramārthika-sattā. It is rjuna denies the reality of the world even at the em- only at this level that the world appears to be un- pirical level, whereas Shankara denies the reality of real or illusory. the world only at the level of the Absolute. Lastly, Absolute Reality is also experienced directly. Shankara regards the world as something superim- Compared to this experience, the experience of posed on Brahman. This idea ofadhyāsa , superim- empirical reality may be described as indirect, position, is Shankara’s original idea which is absent because it is mediated by the sense organs. The in the philosophy of Nagarjuna or even in Vijnana- supersensuous experience of absolute Reality is im- vada Buddhism. mediate, aparokṣa.7 This is to be distinguished from Unreality of the World · Shankara’s main pratyakṣa, sense-experience. The aparokṣa experi- interest was in establishing the sole reality of Brah- ence, which takes place without the mediation of man, and it was in support of this that he attempted the senses, is the result of Brahman’s self-revelation. to show the ultimate unreality of the world, which Brahman reveals itself because it is self-luminous. he did mainly by quoting scriptures. But for post- Brahman is of the nature of pure Consciousness, Shankara Advaitins, the unreality of the world and which shines in the hearts of all as the Atman. the theory of ajñāna became the chief concern be- Everything is known through consciousness, but cause of the need to defend these doctrines against consciousness cannot be known as an object. Con- the polemical attacks of rival schools. sciousness is self-luminous; it reveals itself—it is The crucial problem facing post-Shankara svaprakāśa. The well-known definition of svaprakāśa Advaitins was to establish the unreality of the phe- given by the thirteenth-century Advaita writer Cit- nomenal world. Appealing to transcendental experi- sukha says that ‘self-revelation is the capability to ence was of no use as many of the opponents, for give rise to immediate self-awareness without its example the Naiyayikas, did not believe in it and, becoming objective knowledge’. 8 moreover, since transcendental experience is subject- Shankara’s theory of two levels of reality, the ive, each person may claim his own experience to be pāramārthika and the vyāvahārika, is a distinct the true one. Therefore, the unreality of the world and unique feature of Advaita Vedanta. Sri Rama- had to be established at the empirical level itself. For PB January 2010 13 32 Prabuddha Bharata this the first task was to define ‘reality’. What is the to a third kind of reality known as prātibhāsika- criterion to distinguish reality from unreality? sattā, illusory existence. The dream becomes unreal Two lines of reasoning are followed by Advaitins only when a person wakes up. Similarly, the world to establish the unreality of the phenomenal appears to be real until a person awakens to the real- world. One is to equate impermanence with un- ization of Brahman.12 reality, and the other to equate objectivity with It should also be pointed out here that the other unconsciousness. schools of Vedanta do not accept Shankara’s con- (i) Anitya is asatya: The ultimate Reality, known cept of a two-level or three-level reality, nor the as Brahman, is unchanging and eternal. From this unreality of the world. They accept the world as im- it is natural to conclude that whatever is changing permanent, no doubt, but for them, impermanence must be impermanent, and whatever is imperman- does not mean unreality. ent must be unreal—anitya is asatya. This equation (ii) Cit and jaḍa: The second line of reasoning was, however, first worked out by Nagarjuna in the that Advaitins follow in order to prove the unreality second century. In Mulamadhyamaka-karika he of the world is based on the antinomic nature of states: ‘That which did not exist in the beginning the subject and the object. A major premise of the and will not exist in the future, how can it be said to Advaitins is that consciousness is always the sub- exist in the middle? 9 Gaudapada, in his Mandukya ject; it can never be objectified. It is a fundamental Karika, expresses exactly the same idea.10 principle that the subject and the object can never Furthermore, Nagarjuna showed the contradict- be the same. In order to know an object we need ory nature of all dharmas, all phenomena and ex- consciousness; but to know consciousness nothing periences. What is contradictory cannot be true. is necessary, because consciousness is self-luminous, Thus, contradictoriness became a criterion of fal- svayaṁ-jyoti, self-revealing. This means, all objects sity. From this the Advaitins derived the idea that belong to the realm of the unconscious, jaḍa. non-contradictoriness, abādhitatva, is the test and Chitsukha argues that there can be no relation criterion of truth or true knowledge.11 between the subject, which is pure consciousness, Impermanence itself is a form of contradiction. and the object, which is jaḍa. In fact, the subject- The external world ceases to exist for a person who object relationship is false. However, Chitsukha is in the dream, svapna, or deep-sleep, suṣupta, also shows that the world is false only when the states. The experiences of dream and deep-sleep Absolute is realized.13 states contradict the experiences of the waking (To be concluded) state. Hence, the external world must be regarded Notes and References as unreal. Brahman as the inner Self, pratyagātman, 1. Na hi jīvo nāmātyanta-bhinno brahmaṇaḥ … bud- always abides within us as the unchanging witness, dhy-ādy-upādhi-kṛtaṁ tu viśeṣam-āśritya brahmaiva sākṣin. It abides even in deep sleep; this is known san-jīvaḥ kartā bhoktā cety-ucyate. Shankaracharya’s from the fact that after a deep sleep we are able to commentary on Brahma Sutra, 1.1.31. recollect, ‘I have had a sound sleep; and I did not 2. Vijñānātma-paramātmanor-avidyā-praty- upasthāpita-nāmarūpa-racita-dehādy-upādhi- know anything.’ The dream and deep-sleep states nimitto bhedo na pāramārthikaḥ (1.4.22). do not negate or contradict awareness or con- 3. In treatises on Vedanta three kinds of bheda, dif- sciousness. Consciousness as Atman-Brahman is ference, are mentioned: (i) Vijātīya-bheda: the unchanging, unbroken, ever present; therefore it difference between objects of different kinds or alone is real, it is the only Reality. species; as for example the difference between a tree and a cow. The difference between Purusha In this connection it should be noted that and Prakriti in Sankhya philosophy is of this kind. Advaitins accept even the dream state to be real as The difference between God and the souls in the long as the experience of the dream lasts. It belongs Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions is also of 14 PB January 2010 Four Basic Principles of Advaita Vedanta 33 this kind. Just as the potter and the pot can never of India, 7 vols (Kolkata: Ramakrishna Mission be the same, so also the Creator and creature can Institute of Culture, 2001), 3.245. never be the same. This is not the type of dif- 5. Satyaṁ jñānam-anantaṁ brahma, Taittiriya Upa- ference between the individual Self and the Su- nishad, 2.1.1. preme Self accepted in Dvaita schools of Vedanta. 6. Sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma, Chhandogya Upani- (ii) Sajātīya-bheda: the difference between ob- shad, 3.14.1; Neha nānāsti kiñcana, Brihadaranyaka jects of the same kind or species; as for instance Upanishad, 4.4.19; Katha Upanishad, 2.1.11. the differences between two mango trees. The dif- 7. Yat-sākṣād-aparokṣād-brahma, Brihadaranyaka ference between two Purushas in Sankhya phil- Upanishad, 3.4.1–2; also 3.5.1. osophy, and the difference between two liberated 8. Avedyatve sati aparokṣa-vyavahāra-yogyatā; Chit- selves in Ramanuja’s philosophy, are of this type. sukhacharya, Tattvapradipika (Nirnayasagar), 9. (iii) Svagata-bheda: the differences found among 9. Naivāgraṁ nāvaraṁ yasya tasya madhyaṁ kuto the parts of the same object; as for instance the bhavet; Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamaka Karika, 11.2. difference among the branches, leaves, and flowers 10. Gaudapada, Mandukya Karika, 2.5. of a mango tree, or the differences between rind, 11. Abādhitārtha-viṣayaka-jñānaṁ pramā; see pulp, and seeds of a bel fruit. This is the type of dif- Dharmaraja Adhvarindra, Vedānta Paribhāṣā, ference between Atman, the individual Self, and trans. Swami Madhavananda (Kolkata: Advaita Brahman in the dualistic schools of Ramanuja, Ashrama, 2004), 4. Madhva, and others. This kind of difference is 12. See Shankaracharya’s commentary on Brahma necessary for the soul to adore and love God and Sutra, 2.1.14: ‘Sarva-vyavahārāṇām-eva prāg- enjoy the bliss of Brahman. But Shankara denies brahmātmatā-vijñānāt-satyatvopapatteḥ svapna- even svagata-bheda in Brahman; according to him vyavahārasyeva prāk-prabodhāt; all empirical the individual Self attains oneness with Brahman, usages are true before the realization of Brahman so much so that it becomes Bliss itself. as the Self, just as the experiences in the dream 4. Krishnachandra Bhattacharya, ‘The Advaita and state are true before one wakes up.’ Its Spiritual Significance’, in The Cultural Heritage 13. Tattvapradipika, 40–3.

Dṛg-Dṛśya-Viveka

edanta philosophy describes at great length the object. This confusion is observable in every action and Vdistinction between the ‘Seer’ (dr. g) and the ‘seen’ thought of our daily life, and is expressed in such com- (dr. śya), the Subject (viśayī) and the object (viśaya), the mon statements as ‘This is I’ or ‘This is mine,’ whereby we ‘Ego ‘ (aham) and the ‘non-Ego’ (idam). The ‘Seer’ is the identify the ‘I,’ which is of the nature of Pure Conscious- perceiver, identical with the Subject and the Ego, and ness, with such material objects as the body, the mind, is of the nature of Consciousness and Intelligence. The the senses, house, or country. On account of the same ‘seen’ is the thing perceived, identical with the object and confusion we associate the Eternal Self with such charac- the non-Ego, and is insentient by nature. The ‘ Seer’ is all teristics of the body as birth, growth, disease, and death; sentiency; therefore the ‘ Seer’ and the ‘seen,’ the Subject and this confusion is expressed in such statements as ‘I and the object, the ‘Ego’ and the ‘non-Ego,’ are mutually am born,’ ‘I am growing,’ ‘I am ill,’ or ‘I am dying.’ opposed and must never be identified with each other. Discrimination between the ‘Seer’ and the ‘seen’ is If one associates the attributes of the Subject with the the road leading to the realization of Truth. The ‘Seer’ is object, or, vice versa, those of the object with the Sub- the unchangeable and homogeneous Consciousness, ject, one is a victim of an illusory superimposition, the or the knowing principle. It is the perceiver, the Subject, result of one’s own ignorance. Yet it is a matter of com- the real ‘Ego.’ The ‘seen’ is what is perceived; it is outside mon experience that in daily practical life people do not the ‘Seer’ and therefore identical with the object. It is distinguish between the Subject and the object, but matter, non-Self, and ‘non-Ego.’ The ‘seen’ is multiple and superimpose the attributes of the one upon the other. changeable. Through ignorance they confuse the Subject with the —Swami Nikhilananda, Self-Knowledge, 43–4 PB January 2010 15