A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO ADVAITA

VEDĀNTA

(TRANSLATED FROM ORIGINAL BENGALI)

SWĀMĪ VIŚVARŪPĀNANDA
 VEDAS AND THEIR TRANSCENDENTAL NATURE

The Veda is our sacred book. Sāyaṇacārya, the commentator on all the four Vedas said
‘istaprāptyānistaparihārayoh alaukikaṁ upāyaṁ yo granthaḥ vedayati saḥ Vedaḥ (Ai. Br. -
Sāyaṇa Bhāṣya)— “Veda is that literature which sheds light on the transcendental means of
achieving what is desirable and avoiding what is undesirable. Indeed the Veda has its source in
the imperishable Supreme Being or Absolute Brahman (akṣara parabraḥmāśrita—Śv.Up.4/8);
it is a beginningless, endless, unearthly, eternal mass of words and reservoir of knowledge.
According to Bṛ. Up.(2/4/10), its origin is considered to have been the effortless manifestation
of the Supreme Being, just like the natural process of exhalation at the beginning of a new
world (kalpa) and after the great dissolution (Mahapralaya) of the old one. The Supreme Lord
is the cause of its manifestation. The Veda remains completely unaffected and its existence is
always intact even when the new world is projected by the Lord according to the similar
sequential order of creation of the previously existing worlds. That is why, in spite of being the
creator of the Veda, the Supreme Lord (Paramesvara) is not the composer of It like Vyasa,
composer of the treatises Mahabharata etc. which are considered to be of human origin.
Rather, It appeared in the mind of the first manifested being (Hiraṇyagarbha) at the
commencement of this new world by the grace of the Supreme Being.

This Veda which is a mass of words and which is the very nature of the reservoir of knowledge
remained in a subtle (potential) form, completely merged in the absolute power of the Lord
beyond human speech and mind before it appeared in the mind of the Hiraṇyagarbha. From
that Hiraṇyagarbha it assumed the delineated shape and evolved into the form of utterance,
and will be sustained till the dissolution of the world. And, according to the succession of
creation as embedded in the Veda, Braḥmā created the Universe and imparted the Veda to the
great sages like Sanaka, Sanandana, Marīchi, Vasistha, Bhṛgu and Manu who, in their turn,
imparted it to their sons and disciples and in this way the Vedas have come down the ages to
the present generation of mankind and are still being prevalent through a continuous chain of
lineage from teacher to pupil or from father to son through oral transmission. As they were
transmitted orally, they are called Śruti. Some Ṛṣis also attained the Knowledge of the ‘Vedas’
by dint of their intense austerities and they are called ‘seers’ as they ‘perceived’ the Truth. For
instance, the seer Yājñavalkya acquired the Śukla-Yajur-Veda from Āditya. These Ṛṣis are not
the Authors of the Vedas, rather they are the seers of the eternal Veda. “Now what we call Veda
is the first, the most complete and the most undistorted collection of the transcendental
reservoir of knowledge. For this reason the Vedas deserve to occupy the highest place among
all scriptures, to command the respect of all the people of the world and to furnish the proof of
the truth for all other scriptures either Āryan or non-Āryan.” - Swami Vivekananda.
DIVISION OF VEDAS

Though the Veda was a unified plenary revelation, division into four parts mainly was made to
serve the purpose of easy execution and application in sacrificial works in accordance with the
requirements of the different priests. Vyāsa in an attempt to sustain the originality of this
unified mass of knowledge, noticing the gradual downfall and degeneration of merit and
memory among men divided it into four parts at the end of the Dvāpara yuga. These four parts
are Rg, Sāma, Yajus and Atharva to be sung respectively by the priests- Hotā, Udgātā,
Adhvyaryus and Brahma. Brahma is an expert in performing the rites and rituals embedded in
all the four Vedas. Besides all these, Atharva Veda gives an account of various kinds of rituals
like ‘Śāntika’, Paustika, Mārana, Vaśīkarana etc. Again Veda has three kinds of parts
(Avayavas)―the portions containing regular Pāda and Aksara (stanza or syllable) are called
Rk; portion containing irregular Pāda and Aksara is called Yajus and the portions set to the
mode of singing and chanting are called Sāma. Thus the Vedas are also called ‘Trayī’ (Trio) in
a secondary sense for their tripartite categorization. But many take it for granted that the term
Veda includes only Rk, Sāma and Yajus excluding Atharva veda. It is wrong to think so. The
Rg Veda is replete with Rks meaning laudatory verses, Yajur Veda is replete with Yajus meaning
liturgical passages or formulas. Sāma Veda is replete with sāmas meaning melodies and
Atharva Veda is replete with Rks seen by the sage Atharva.

DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF THE VEDA

Each Veda is divided into different branches or recensions (Sakhas). There are twenty one
such sākhās for Rg Veda like ‘Śakala sākhā’, ’Vāṣkala Sākhā’ etc. Sāma Veda has one thousand
sākhās like ‘Kauthuma’, ‘Jaiminīya’ or ‘Talabakārīya’, ‘Rānayanīya’, ‘Śāndilya (-Tāndi)
Paingī etc. Yajur Veda has hundred śākhās which are sub-divided into two parts like Black
Yajur Veda which includes śākhās like ‘Taittirīya’, ‘Katha’ or ‘Kāthaka’, ‘Maitrāyanī’,
‘Śvetāśvatara’ etc and White Yajur Veda including śākhās like ‘Kānva’,’Mādhyandina’ etc.
Atharva Veda has nine such śākhās like ‘Paippalāda’; ‘Śaunaka’ etc. But at present, there is a
tendency among some people who are fond of calling the śākhās of White Yajur Veda and Black
Yajur Veda with an exception of ‘Taittirīya’ as ‘Ādya Yajur Veda’. According to them Taittirīya
śākhā or Krsna Yajur Veda is regarded as that part of the Veda which was neglected by
Yājñavalkya and picked up in the form of partridge by the Rsis. The rest are regarded as ‘Ādya
Yajur Veda’. There is another ancient structural variance based on the fact that the part of the
Veda which combines the Mantra and the Brāhmana portion is regarded as Black Yajur Veda
and the part which was attained by Yājñavalkya dis-joined of Mantra and Brāhmana is
regarded as ‘White Yajur Veda’. Again the Muktikopanisad which falls under Yajur Veda
records as there having existed hundred and nine such śākhās for Yajur Veda and fifty for
Atharva Veda. About most of these nothing is known at present except this bare mention. In
some ancient treatises like Caranavyūha and Vedānukramanikā the mere mention of some
upanisads’ names are found; even some names are lost in the abyss of oblivion. At least up to
date it has remained undiscovered. Here the term śākhā does not indicate any fragmentary
portion of the whole Veda; it is attached with, like the branch of a tree, rather all the śākhās are
self-sufficient and self-accomplished Veda only. So each of the śākhās completely independent
and unconnected of one another bears the entire Veda it belongs to. So a thorough study of one
particular śākhā amounts to the study of the whole Veda it is attached with. Four disciples of
Vyasa— Paila, Vaisampayana, Jaimini, and Sumanta were the recipients of the four Vedas ―
Rk, Yajur, Sāma and Atharva respectively. From their time this classification into various
śākhās came to exist and during the time of the disciples of their lineal heads the number
multiplied. According to vedāntins this classification into śākhās mainly arose on the basis of
the division of samhitās, disparity in intonation and inequality in expression which were the
resultants of the anomaly on the part of the learners’ retaining capacity in the memory and
difference in pronunciation of the disciples due to the oral-basis-transmission in continuous
succession from master to disciple. There is hardly any possibility for the rise and occurrence
of any kind of difference and disparity in the recital and perusal of the Vedas or even a single
letter as they are highly dominated by eleven kinds of duly fixed, well arranged, methodical
recital process like Samhitā pātha, Padapātha Kramapātha, Jatapātha, Ghanapātha etc. So it
is very difficult to affirm how classification came to exist. Or it may be presumed that this
classification has been existent from time immemorial like the beginningless diversity of
creation. The disciples of Vyasa received all their respective branches of the eternally existent
Vedas. And realizing the absence of prodigious memory and merit among their disciples, they
imparted to their respective disciples only a few of those śākhās or one single of them and
again the new generation minimized them more while teaching their disciples. Perhaps, in this
way this classification has come down the ages. Srimad Bhāgavata bears the evidence of this
fact–‘Ta Eta Rsayo vedam svam svam Vyasannanekadha \ Śisyaih praśisyaistacchisyairvedaste
Śakhino’bhavan’ (1/4/23). Or it may be assumed that like the white Yajurveda of sage
Yajnavalkya, some rsis might have acquired śākhās belonging to particular Vedas as a result of
their intense austerities. The real fundamental truth needs to be found out. However, it is
consolatory to realize the fact that up to date the Vedas have remained as they were (despite
some of their śākhās being extinct), since each śākhā of the Veda is self-sufficient.

MANTRA AND BRĀHMAṆA―TWO DIVISIONS OF THE VEDAS AND

THEIR APPLICATION
Each of the Vedas is divided into two parts- Mantra and Brāhmaṇa. The Mantra portion of Ṛg
Veda consists of the Ṛg Veda samhitā (having śākhās like Śākala samhitā, Vāṣkala samhitā
etc.) and the Brāhmaṇa portion consists of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (another name being
Bahvṛca Brāhmaṇa) together with Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa (another name being Śāmkhāyana
Brāhmaṇa). The mantra portion of Sāma Veda comprises the Sāma-Veda samhitā and Tāṇdya
Mahābrāhmaṇa (other names being Praudha Brāhmaṇa or Pañcavimśati Brāhmaṇa),
Sadvimśa Brāhmaṇa (another name being Tāṇdyaṡeṣa Brāhmaṇa), Devatādhyāya Brāhmaṇa
(another name being Daivata Brāhmaṇa), Ārṣeya Brāhmaṇa, Sāmavidhana Brāhmaṇa,
Saṃhitopanişad Brāhmaṇa, Vaṃśa Brāhmaṇa, Mantra Brāhmaṇa (termed as Upaniṣad
Brāhmaṇa by venerable Sāyaṇācārya) all these together comprise the Brāhmaṇa portion of the
Sāma Veda. The Yajur Veda is sub divided into two parts: Śukla Yajur Veda and Kṛṣṇa Yajur
Veda. The Mantra portion of Śukla Yajur Veda is Śukla Yajur Veda samhitā (having śākhās like
Kanva Samhita and Madhyandina Samhita and these two together is known as Vajasaneya
Samhita) and its Brahmana portion is Kaṇva and Madhyandina Satapatha Brahmana. The
Krsna Yajur Veda Samhita covers the mantra portion of Krsna Yajur Veda (having sakhas like
Kathasamhita, Maitrayanisamhita, Svetasvatarasamhita, Taittiriyasamhita etc.) and Taittiriya
Brahmana, Maitrayani Brahmana, Vallabhi Brahmana, Satyayani Brahmana― all these
together consist the Brahmana portion of it. Atharva Veda samhita (having sakhas like
Paippalada samhita, Saunaka samhita etc.) comprises the mantra portion of the Atharva Veda
and Gopatha Brahmana is its Brahmana portion. Besides the above mentioned appellations
many other names relating to Brahmanas are found but obscurity looms large in their definite
identification with respective Sakhas or Vedas. Brahmana portion is based on the functional
instructions, the explanation or practical application of the mantras, mode of rites and rituals
assigned for attaining material prosperity or heavenly bliss, detailed account of the
indispensable parts underlying the performance of the religious rites, prohibitions, inspirational
eulogy (-Arthavada) in favour of ceremonials for inducing people sacrificial rites, etc. And the
mantra part reveals the observances to be executed. During the performance of rites these
mantras become supportive to the priests authorized for the respective fields in remembering
the sequence of the indispensable parts concerned with respective ceremonials. Indeed, in due
course, the result or consequence namely Adrsta is generated on being performed meticulously,
uttering the mantras in accordance with the said injunctions.

ARANYAKA AND UPANISAD

Aranyaka and almost all the upanisads belong to the Brahmana portion. For example,
Kausitaki Aranyaka falls under the Kausitaki Brahmana of Rig Veda. Aitreya Aranyaka comes
under Aitareya Brahmana of Rig Veda. Again Kausitaki Upanisad comes under Kausitaki
Aranyaka and Aitareyopanisad falls under Aitreya Aranyaka. Chandogya Upanisad is included
in the mantra Brahmana (sometimes goes by its alternative name- Chandogya Brahmana) of
Sama Veda and Kenopanisad falls under the Talavakara Brahmana of Sama Veda.
Brhadaranyaka Upanisad is included in the Satapatha Brahmana of Sukla Yajurveda, both
Taittiriya Upanisad and Mahanarayana Upanisad are included in Taittiriya Aranyaka or
Taittiriya Brahmana of Krsna Yajurveda. In the mantra portion also some Upanisads are
included. For instance, Isavasya Upanisad is studied in Vajasaneya Samhita of Sukla
Yajurveda; Maitrayaniyopanisad (also known as Maitrayaniya Aranyaka) is the fifth kanda of
Maitrayani Samhita in Krsna Yajur Veda. Svetasvatara Upanisad is chanted in Svetasvatara
Samhita in Krsna Yajur Veda. Thus Upanisads are scattered in large number in the Vedas. Of
these, 108 upanisads are considered as major ones and their association with respective Vedas
has been recorded in Muktikopanisad. But it does not mention their association with respective
sakhas or a detailed account of the Brahmanas and Samhitas they are associated with. The
Aranyaka and Upanisad are the refuge of Vanaprasthins, the third stage of man’s life (those
who take the vow of a recluse and live a life in the solitude of forest) and sannyasins (the final
stage of man’s life) respectively, for they both primarily give instructions of various worships
and knowledge of the non-qualified Brahman, supposed to be executed by them. Though
Aranyakas bear the records of prayers and rituals, they are dominated by an abundance of
prayers.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD ‘UPANISAD’ AND WHY IT IS CALLED

VEDANTA OR JNANAKANDA.

The meaning of the word ‘Upanisad’ is ‘Brahmavidya’, the knowledge of Brahman

(introduction to Tai. Aranyaka, Sayanabhasyabhumika). The word ‘Upanisad’ is derived by
adding ‘upa’(near) and ‘ni’(with certainity) as prefixes and ‘kvip’ as a suffix to the root ‘sad’
meaning to split up (destroy), go (reach, attain), or loosen. Thus the word ‘Upanisad’ means
that knowledge, the association or refuge of which destroys the seeds of worldly existence like
ignorance through steadfast practice with confidence (Introduction to Kathopanisad). Or, “it is
that knowledge which undoubtedly brings the individual soul (Jivatma) close to non-dual
Brahman by destroying ignorance, the cause of this world” (Tait.Ar., Sayanabhasyabhumika).
A scriptural book may also be called Upanisad in a secondary sense because it is instrumental
to attain the Supreme Knowledge or Brahmavidya through study and preaching. These
Upanisads comprise the Jnanakanda of the Vedas while the Mantra and the Brahmana portions
together comprise the Karma kanda of the Vedas. Karma kanda deals with various kinds of
sacrifices and ceremonials to be performed as daily obligatory duties (Nitya Karma), obligatory
on some special occasions (Naimittika karma) or duties to be performed to fulfill some definite
motives or desires (Kamya Karma) for the seekers of material prosperity either in this world or
in the other world. For the seekers of emancipation these Nitya and Naimittika karmas, if
performed with a fruitless motive, result in developing a pure mind (citta suddhi) and intense
desire to know God (Vividisa) which consequently leads to the attainment of knowledge. On
the other hand for the seekers of liberation who are afflicted with this world and disgusted in
having worldly enjoyments, having no desire for prosperity in the other world, Jnanakanda
prescribes different forms of worship as means of attaining unbroken concentration of mind
and Kramamukti (liberation by stages), whereas for Videhamukti ( liberation with the fall of
body) it deals with the nature of the individual soul, the nature of Brahman, the non-difference
between the individual soul and Brahman, the nature of liberation, the means of attaining it
(liberation) etc. Not only that, with a view to generating intense dispassion among the seekers
of liberation, Jnanakanda gives an account of the order of creation of the world, its nature, the
cause of the cycle of birth and death, transmigration to various worlds obtaining Pitriyana or
Devayana Marga as a merit of performing different forms of rituals and worships. The
Upanisads are verily known as ‘Vedanta’ ―which means the end or essence of the Veda or
Uttara bhaga. They have been entitled ‘Vedanta’ due to the fact that they are studied at the end
of the Vedas when, after performing the rites and sacrifices the mind becomes fit for the
acquisition of higher knowledge. Again it has been entitled ‘Jnanakanda’ (The knowledge
portion) for being Tatvajnana (fundamental truth or philosophical truth) its predominant
subject. This is what, in short, our sacred book Veda is.

UTTARA MIMAMSA OR VEDANTA DARSHANA

Purva Mimamsa darsana is a treatise based on the ritualistic portion (Karmakanda) of the
Vedas in the form of Aphorisms or sutras by the great sage Jaimini, disciple of Vedavyasa. He
composed it with an intention of further elucidation of that portion. And the authorship of
Uttara Mimamsa, a treatise based on the knowledge portion (Jnanakanda) of the Veda, an
attempt in connection with further elucidation of the philosophical thoughts and refutation of
the contradictory opinions against the Vedas, is ascribed to the great sage Vyasa, also known as
Krsna Dvaipayana, Badarayana, Vedavyasa etc. This treatise is also known as Sariraka
Mimamsa, Brahma Mimamsa, Vedanta Darsana, Vedanta Sutra, Brahma Sutra or Vyasa Sutra.
Parasaryasilalibhyam Bhiksunata Sutrayoh (Panini sutra- 4/3/110) — in this Panini sutra this
treatise has been entitled as Bhiksusutra. Another Panini sutra―karmmandakrsasvaadinih
(4/3/111) (Karmmandi means a beggar who has renounced Karmas and Krsasvi means an actor)
also hints at the same meaning. So, the book is mainly meant for the all-renouncing monks and
that is why it has been entitled Bhiksusutra. This treatise mainly expounds the upanisadic ideas
and it has given access to such a large variety of interpretations, commentaries, glosses and
explanations that it becomes almost impossible for a wise and intelligent person to study with
perseverance and conceive the inherent ideas in proper perspective in one life. Because of a
wide variety of interpretations by different commentators several doctrines like Advaita,
Dvaita, Acintyabhedabheda, Dvaitadvaita, Suddhaadvaita, Visistadvaita have come into
existence based on this book. Now, we shall give a brief introduction to all these doctrines.
ADVAITAVADA (MONISM) OF ACHARYA SANKARA

The term Advaitavada is ascribed to that doctrine which is completely based on the Sruti
(though Smriti references are often quoted in support of Sruti for its explication) and which
admits of no other absolute entity than the Brahman―the substratum of all, formless,
attributeless and without any distinction. This doctrine is also known as ‘Kevaladvaitavada’.
While explaining this, the venerable Varttikakara (critical commentator) has said “dvidhetam
dvitamityahustadbhavo dvaitamucyate / Tannisedhena cadvaitam pratyagvastvabhi dhiyate”
[Br. Bha. Va. 4/3/1807]. It means―that which is associated with dual division is dual i.e. the
sense it conveys is dual but through the denial of duality there remains the ‘Pratyagatman, the
substratum of all, which is known as Advaita. There is nothing absolute or eternal except this.
It is of the nature of Infinite by Itself, devoid of any bheda or distinction like sajatiya bheda
(intrinsic difference—difference between two different bodies of the same species such as
difference between two mango trees), Vijatiya bheda (extrinsic difference―difference between
two different bodies of dissimilar species such as difference between a tree and a man) and
Svagata bheda (immanent— difference among the parts of a single body such as difference
among the root, branches and stem etc. of a tree). Kasakrtsna, Badari, Vasista, Astavakra,
Sukadeva, Vamadeva, Samvartta and Uddalaka―all these ancient rsis were Advaitins. Later
on, with an exception of Sukadeva, they all, gave rise to a variety of doctrines, based on the
treatise Brahmasutra composed by Badarayana. So, in this sense Badarayana can necessarily
be claimed as believer in all faiths. The grandeur and authenticity of these sutras lie in the fact
that all the predominant and prevalent philosophical schools of this country have explained
them in favour of their own preconceived ideas. Just a few years ago one Bengali scholar
venerable Pancanan Tarkaratna by name has written a commentary entitled Saktibhasya on
these sutras. In course of their explanation the commentators, have adopted though sparsely
various means regarding the division of sutras and adhikaranas (section), new addition of
sutras, changes in the placement of the sutras, variation in the ascertainment of the opponent
(Purvapaksa) and conclusion (Uttarapaksa) etc. So, as to the originality of the sutras, their
order of arrangement and the Badarayana’s intention behind them, we are still in the
dark―only he and the indwelling Almighty knows. Inquisitive readers may consult
Brahmasutrabhasyanirnay written by one of our great teachers Rev. Sw. Chidghananada Puri.
The primitive acaryas used to think that Jaimini’s composition of the Purvamimamsa was an
attempt to solve the conflicting opinions or divergent views of Karmakanda and to enunciate
the purport of them whereas Uttaramimamsa was composed by Lord Badarayana with an
intention to resolve the conflicting philosophical thoughts of Jnanakanada and explicate the
ideas underlying them. And it is evident from the statement of Anubhasyavacan (a commentary
on Brahmasutra by Vallabhacarya) ―‘Sarvopanisatsamadhanartham pravrttah sutrakarah’.
But the divergent explanations of various schools based on their respective philosophical ideas
have given rise to an adverse consequence. All the commentators try to maintain that their
system is the consistent one which Badarayana propounded through his sutras.

However, after Badarayana came the acarya Gaudapada who composed the Mandukya
Karika―a non-dual (Advaitic) exposition based on the Mandukyasruti. Some say that
Badarayana was the disciple of Sukadeva; some others say that he was the son of Chaya Suka.
There have been many legends in this regard. Then came Sankaracarya, Badarayana’s grand
disciple who wrote commentary on Mandukyakarika and exclusively basing on the statements
of the srutis in all the adhikaranas of Bramasutras and determining them as the principal
subject for delineation, he wrote an exposition, namely, Sarirakabhasya which stood very
effective for the extensive propagation of the Non-dualism. In this way it gave rise to a lineage
of teachers and disciples in Sankarite tradition. It can be taken for granted that the sutras
adopted by Sankara and their exposition given by him are invariably transmitted traditionally
from Badarayana.

About the nature of the Brahman the sruti says― Adrsyam avyvaharyyam agrahyam
alaksanam (Ma: 7), “Na tatra caksurgacchati na vaggacchati no manah” (kena up- 1/1/3),
“na caksusa grhyate napi vaca” (Mu up- 3/1/8) etc. So, it is impossible to determine the
characteristic of Brahman which is not to be conceivable through speech and mind. Still, the
sruti for the benefit of the people, to make it intelligible somehow describes Brahman as
“Tadetad Brahma apurvam anaparam anantaram avahyam” (Br up- 2/5/19) which means
Brahman is ‘apurvam’ i.e. devoid of any cause, ‘anaparam’ i.e. devoid of any effect,
‘anantaram and avahyam’ i.e. devoid of any difference viz. Svagata (immanent) bheda
(difference among the various parts of a specie like tree, such as branches, root etc), Sajatiya
(intrinsic) bheda (difference between two mango trees) and Vijatiya (extrinsic) bheda
(difference between two things of two dissimilar species, such as a tree and a man); “Sarvam
khalu idam Brahma” (cha up 3/14/1), “Sah eva adhastat, sah uparistat, sah pascat, sah
purastat….sah eva idam sarvam” (cha up 7/25/1), “Brahmaiva idam amrtam purastat” (Mu
up- 2/1/11) etc. From all these Sruti statements we can comprehend that Brahman which is non
differential, all pervasive, by which the upper world and under world are thoroughly overcast
is the only existent reality and nothing exists beyond this. Whatever becomes evident to us in
this world is verily Brahman― the absolute reality and out of this the creation of another
absolute entity is impossible due to the fact that the nature of Brahman analogous to the
indivisibility and pervasiveness are interrupted. The reflection of the above mentioned Sruti
statements is found in acarya Gaudpada― “svato va parato vapi na kincitvastu jayate” (Ma.
Ka. 4/22), “Etattaduttamam satyam yatra kincit na jayate (ibid- 4/71) — ‘A thing, whatsoever
it may be, is born neither of itself, nor of something else’, ‘This is that highest truth where
nothing whatsoever is born’”. Thus, as it admits of no creation out of Brahman, it is called
Ajatvada (the doctrine of unborn). These sruti statements are vividly felt in our life rather being
merely figurative because sruti itself again acknowledges “Aham Brahmasmi” (Br up-1/4/10),
“Ahamiva adhastat aham uparistat” (cha- 7/25/1) [ ‘I am Brahman’, ‘I am that infinite
Brahman in the upward direction and in the downward direction’] and ‘trisu api kalesu
akartrtvabhoktrtvasvarupam brahmahamasmi na itah purvamapi karta bhokta va aham asam,
na idanim, napi bhavisyatkale iti brahmavid avagacchati.” If the separate absolute existence
of this world had been admitted other than Brahman, the realization that “I am Brahman”―
such state of being established in Brahman and the state of perception that ‘ I was not the doer,
nor the enjoyer and never will be’ would never have been felt by a realized soul. Instead they
would have realized ‘I am other than Brahman or I am a part of that infinite Brahman, ‘Once I
was doer or enjoyer, now I am devoid of all these’ or ‘earlier I was the enjoyer of the worldly
happiness and misery, now I am the enjoyer of Brahmaloka (the world of Brahman)’― as
admitted by the propounders of other doctrines. So all these statements of Sruti as well as
Acarya prove it very conclusive that monism admits the Brahman as the absolute entity and
whatever others are cognizable are considered as Maya or Illusion― “Janma mayopamam
tesam sa ca maya na vidyate (Ma. Ka- 4/58), “maya iti avidyamanasya akhya” (commentary).
It means― ‘that which does not exist, which can be eternally removed being stultified by the
knowledge but whose Relative existence appears to be real is Maya or Ignorance’. From the
point of view of the Absolute knowledge, it is always inoperative and hence negligible
(Pancadasi- 6/129). Due to this unreal existence of Maya or ignorance, Monism holds
Brahman to be the Cause P’rima of the universe, the transcendent conscious entity. That is
why Monism is also called Brahmavāda.

ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATIVE EXISTENCE OF THIS WORLD AND

UNSELFISH WORK FOR THE AWAKENING OF BRAHMAJNANA

From the view point of the Absolute, ‘Brahman is not perceived by speech and mind’, ‘this
world was never created out of Brahman’, ‘all are of the nature of Brahman’ — mere utterance
of all these statements does not alleviate the misery caused by this world and does not bring an
end of this directly perceived world to ordinary people like us. Hence, in order to show us the
means of the complete cessation of misery, attainment of salvation or absolute bliss, the state
of being established in Brahman as mentioned in the preceding passage above, the venerable
Sruti herself accepts the Relative existence of this empirical world generated by way of
Superimposition (Adhyaropa) and furnishes us with demonstrating the means of how
individual soul (Jiva) can restore his previous state, can surpass the miseries of this world as
well as obtain the bliss of self-realization. Determining those statements of the Sruti as the
prime subject for delineation the kind-hearted Acarya Lord Badarayana Vedavyasa composed
‘Brahmasutra’ and Acarya Sankara who is in the lineage of Badarayana wrote a commentary
namely Sariraka Bhasya on it. We want to further draw the attention of the readers that from
the philosophical point of view despite the division being admitted between the existence of
Brahman as the Absolute Reality and this world as Relative Existence, despite the aspirant who
wants to realize the formless, non-qualified Brahman (Nirguna Brahman) in the path of
knowledge (Jnanamarga) being in the practice to look at this world as illusory or a dream-like
manifestation during the process of discrimination (prescribed as sravana, manana and
nididhyasana) and becomes established in it in the gradual process, this world and empirical
dealings appear as true like the feeling that this physical body is the Self to all the votaries who
practise selfless action and other aspirants before the awakening of knowledge; this fact is
bereft of any such distinction either Absolute or Relative. The venerable commentator also
clearly states that ‘Satyam eva avidyayam lokavedavyavaharavatarah’, ‘Sarvavyavaharanam
eva pragbrahmatma vijnanat satyatvopapatteh’ and ‘ dehatmapratyayo yadvat pramanatvena
kalpitah’, ‘laukikam tadvadevidam pramanam tvatmaniscayat’ (1/1/4). The opponents raised
the question against Sankara that because of his acceptance of this world as illusory and non-
acceptance of the reconciliation of knowledge and action, the aspirants (sadhakas) become
disinclined or reluctant towards action and go astray from the path of attaining the Supreme
Knowledge. This kind of inference results from being ignorant of this doctrine. It does not
intend to mean that this world is to be considered false before the dawn of Knowledge of the
non-qualified Brahman, rather it seeks to expose that those who have generated desire for
knowledge (vividisa) out of the performance of the four preliminary disciplines
(sadhanacatustaya) and those, desirous of attaining non-qualified Brahman, who take recourse
to the practice of this knowledge being somehow disinclined to the idea that this physical body
is the Self; being solely devoted to the contemplation that I am non-doer, non-enjoyer ‘Thou’,
the pure consciousness and non-different from Brahman, to them performance of action
becomes impossible due to the dream-like appearance of this world on their part along with
their body, mind as well. This is the reason for which Acarya speaks of inconsistency in the
simultaneous performance of knowledge and action. The aspirants, desirous of attaining the
non-qualified Brahman, who undertake at listening to the scriptural injunctions, for them only,
injunction like ‘Sannyasya sravanam kuryyat’ appeals to be significant. And those who aspire
after qualified Brahman (saguna Brahman) and liberation by stages (kramamukti), for them
also Acarya admits of the reconciliation of knowledge and action. In this context, the word
‘knowledge’ (Jnana) means upasana― mental activities relating to Saguna Brahman and this
is also equally admitted by other Acaryas. The awakening of the knowledge of Brahman either
qualified or non-qualified remains a cry for the moon and even the dawn of the desire for
knowledge (vividisa) lies far behind if the daily rites (Nitya Karma) and the rites to be observed
on special occasions (Naimittika karma) are not performed with any fruitless intention (3/4/6).
Again, though the knowledge of qualified Brahman dawns, one has to continue a life-long
observance of the daily rites and the rites on special occasions without any motive for the
cessation of sin and nourishment of knowledge― this is the inference that Acarya Sankara and
his followers admit as conclusive. Not realizing this fundamental truth, the opponents
contradict in vain.

A competent student according to Uttarmimamsa, or the knowledge portion of the Veda, is

he who has undergone the four preliminary disciplines (Sadhanacatustaya), necessarily may
not be the knower of work indicating Purvamimamsa or Karma kanda (work portion of the
Veda)― this is the idea that Advaita preaches. From the Relative standpoint it characterizes
Brahman as “Janmadyasya Yatah” (1/1/2) means― whence the creation, existence, and
dissolution of this world happen. From the Absolute standpoint Brahman is eternal,
unchanging, and all-pervasive like the space bereft of any alteration, ever satisfied without any
constituent part, self-luminous, not limited by dharma and adharma and ever knowable to all.
It is of the nature of consciousness (Caitanya- 3.2.16), devoid of the six modifications like birth
etc. eternal, pure, enlightened, free, immutable and without any attribute (3.2.5). From the
Relative standpoint, He is regarded as embodied one, with forms and attributes, omnipotent
and omniscient; He applying His own power of Maya (Ignorance) takes forms for serving the
purpose of worship (upasana) and giving salvation by stages (kramamukti). In Him the
individual souls (jivas) merge in deep dreamless sleep (susupti- 3.2.2) and He is the giver of
the fruit of action accordingly.

MAYA(IGNORANCE): Maya is synonymous with Avidya (Nescience), Ajnana

(Ignorance), Prakrti (Nature), Akasa (Space), Aksara (Imperishable), Avyakta
(Unmanifested), Bijasakti (the power of seed/ primordial power) and Mahasupti (Dormancy)
etc. In some prakarana granthas (introductory texts), ‘Maya’ has been described as the adjunct
of Iswara (Ishvaropadhi) and Avidya (Ignorance) as the adjunct of the individual soul
(jivopadhi). In the present text Maya is held as the power of the Omniscient God, indescribable
and the empirical (parinami) seed of this empirical world. Lord’s creation of this world is
impossible without Maya. From logical point of view it can neither be described as something
which exists eternally nor can be said that it does not exist; neither can it be determined as the
nature of Isvara nor something different from Isvara. Both the Maya and the empirical world
born out of Maya, are non-permanent as they are stultified at the awakening of the Supreme
Knowledge (Brahmajnana). Again it cannot be ascertained as non-existent (Asat) for, this
world of which Maya is the cause is directly perceived by us and hence proves the very
existence of Maya. Neither can it be said that it is both existing and non-existing (Sadasad) on
account of the impossibility of the co-existence of two contradictory entities like light and
darkness; moreover, this kind of entity consisting of two opposite natures can never be
conceived by intellect also. Hence, this doctrine considers Maya and this empirical world born
out of Maya as ‘Mithya’ (False). The term ‘Mithya’ here means that which cannot be described
in words, not the falsity as conveyed by the analogy ‘the son of a barren woman’. That which
has no real existence but whose existence appears to be true, whose existence cannot be
determined like the horn of a cow that ‘this is like this’, not even can it be described in words
is called ‘Mithya’ (False) or indescribable. The word ‘Mithya’ is terminological here in
conveying this sense in this treatise. Its insignificance and that it is of the nature of complete
cessation can be comprehended only when it is stultified after the dawn of the Supreme
Knowledge (as it veils the real nature of things), not before that on account of its presence
being felt (not being a non-existing entity) in the Relative plane. The pure, attributeless
Brahman is termed as ‘Isvara’ when It is attributed with some illusory adjuncts like name and
form etc. and in the eyes of the knower of Brahman it appears as an actor (Nata) having
numerous forms along with illusory adjuncts, reflected in every object of this world. This
‘Maya’ is dependent (paradhina) because it cannot be executed without being sheltered under
its substratum, the luminous consciousness (Caitanya). Again it is independent (svadhina) due
to the fact that it adds to its substratum, the unattached formless Atman, characteristic qualities
and makes It fit to assume name, form and adjuncts. This is evident from the struti text like
‘Svatantrasvatantratvena saisa vatabijasamanyavat’ (Nr. Up- Ta-9, Ref. Pancadasi 6\132) etc.
The Maya is stultified at the dawn of knowledge of the eternal, pure, enlightened, free,
attributeless Supreme Brahman and the individual souls become accomplished in attaining
liberation (Moksa), become one with Brahman being free from all bondages.

EMPIRICAL WORLD (JAGAT): As the incognizant rope is the cause of being appeared
as a snake, likewise the unknown attributeless Brahman (Nirguna Brahman) is the cause of this
world as it appears before us (Ma. Ka. 2/17). As the snake does not have any existence
superimposed on the rope in the absolute sense, so also this world never exists on the
substratum Brahman in the absolute sense (Paramarthavasthayam sarvavyavaharabhavam
vadanti vedantah― bhasya- 2/105). According to this doctrine the Sruti-aphorisms are
indicative of the creation of this world and they are aid to the awakening of the attributeless
Supreme Knowledge by the process of negation. This is the Absolute standpoint (Paramarthika
drsti) for them who practice the knowledge of attributeless Brahman and who hold that the
world is an apparent transformation of Brahman. But in the Relative sense the Omniscient, All-
powerful Isvara associated with illusory adjuncts is the non-differentiated material-cause
(abhinna-nimitta-upadana-karana) of this world (1/4/7). As the spider when considered from
the standpoint of its own self is the efficient cause of the web (web is produced by the spider
itself out of its own body), likewise the non-differentiated efficient-cum- material causality
(abhinna-nimitta-upadanata) is justified in the case of the illusory Supreme Being on being
apparently transformed into illusory adjunct. From the Relative point of view this doctrine
admits of the law of evolution (Parinamavada) of Brahman―apratyakhyayaiva
karyyaprapancam parinamaprakriyam ca asrayati sagunesu upasanesu upayoksyate
(Brahmasutrabhasya 2nd adhyaya) etc. So, the subtle divisions regarding the causality are— a)
Maya or Ignorance is the evolutionary material (Parinami-upadana), while the wrong
supposition (Adhyasa) of this world is on the substratum— the attributeless Brahman. b) Maya
is the transformational material (vivarta-upadana) or Brahman associated with the power of
Maya (Mayasaktiyuktabrahma). c) Maya is the efficient cause (Nimitta Karana). Maya or
Ignorance has two kinds of power— i) Power of concealment (Avarana Sakti) and ii) Power of
projection (Viksepa Sakti). Just as a small patch of cloud, by obstructing the vision of the
observer, conceals, as it were, the solar disc extending over many miles, similarly Ignorance,
though limited by nature, conceals the real nature of the all-pervasive Brahman with the power
of her concealment by obstructing the intellect of the observers, the bound individual souls
(Vedantasara). According to this doctrine, Brahman Itself is the substratum as well as object
of Ignorance and there is no absolute existence of the individual souls (Jivas) except Brahman.
And this empirical world is projected (created) on that incognizant, veiled Brahman. And from
that Brahman associated with the projecting power of Maya (Ignorance) evolves the space
(Akasa), then from that space (Akasa) originates the Air (Vayu) and in this process five
uncompounded subtle matters (Tanmatras) originate from Brahman in succession (2/3/1-6).
The origin of the vital force (Mukhya-prana), mind, and senses follow from these rudimentary
elements superimposed on Brahman (2\4\1). Afterwards, the process of compounding happens
and this gross universe is created by the Lord (2/4/9). This is the order of creation as taken for
granted in Advaita philosophy.

BRAHMAN―THE SUBSTRATUM AND OBJECT OF IGNORANCE;

LOGICAL EXPLANATION

Now the opponents’ (Prima Facie) view is that the Brahman which is of the nature of
consciousness (Caitanya) and Ignorance (Ajnana) which is of the nature of inertness, are
contradictory to each other like light and darkness. So, how Brahman becomes the (1)
substratum as well as (2) object of Ignorance? In reply to this the Vedantins say― matters are
of two kinds— Self (Atman) and the Non-Self (Anatman). Now, (a) the Ignorance (Maya) which
is of the nature of Non-Self cannot be the substratum of its own, (b) the substratum on which
the Ignorance rests, there arises apprehension and opposite knowledge. The rise of
apprehension is not possible on the Non-Self which is inert, so it cannot be determined as the
substratum of Ignorance. (c) It is visibly accomplished that Ignorance and right knowledge rest
on the same substratum in different period of times, such as― ‘I am ignorant’ and ‘I am wise’.
Knowledge cannot arise in the Non-Self; so, the Non-Self cannot be the substratum of
Ignorance. (d) Non-Self is the effect of Ajnana (Ignorance) and Ignorance is the cause. The
previously existing Ignorance which turns into cause cannot rest on the subsequent Non-Self
which is the effect or product of Ignorance. Ignorance does not rest on the Non-Self (Anatman).
(e) The locus (Adhara) and the content (Adheya) are of different sizes viz. pot (ghata) and
jujube (Badara). Non-Self does not have an independent (svatantra) shape other than
Ignorance; so Ignorance cannot rest on the Non-Self. Therefore the Self (Brahman) is the
substratum of the Ignorance― this can be concluded applying the method of Residue (Parisesa
Nyaya—when many alternatives are negated then the alternative which is not negated is to be
accepted.). 2/ (i) Ignorance cannot make the Non-Self its object, for, the thing which is made
object (Visaya) is induced with some excessive deposit (imparting/Adhanam) by the thing it is
objectified. What abundance the Ignorance which is inert will induce as deposit on the inert
Non-Self? And it also cannot be said that the former will accomplish the perception of the
latter; for, without Jnana (Knowledge) the perception of Ajnana (Ignorance) is not possible.

(ii) Those which are of the nature of Non-Self are the effect of Ignorance; it being so, the effect
and material cause prove to be non-different. So, Ignorance itself becomes its own object—it
is not possible. (iii) The nature of the ‘Self’ (Vastu) is ascertained by the objectivity (visayata)
and the substratum (Asrayata). Now if Ignorance or Non-Self is taken as the locus of Ignorance,
the nature of the Ignorance cannot be established. (iv) Again, that which is the consequence of
the previously existing Ignorance and which is of the nature of the Non-Self cannot be the
object of Ignorance. Sanksepasariraka describes this as ‘asrayatvavisayatvabhagini
nirvibhagacitireva / Purvasiddhatamaso hi pascimo nasrayah bhavati napi gocarah’. It means
the indivisible consciousness (Caitanya) which is bereft of all divisions like individual soul
(Jiva), God (Isvara) as well as divisions like Svagata (immanent) bheda etc. is the object and
substratum of Ignorance. The ego etc. which are created as the consequence later on or the
Supreme Spirit (cidatma) characterized by the ego etc. cannot be the substratum or object of
pre-existing Ignorance. (v) It is law that the object (visaya) is qualified by different forms and
subject (visayi) is qualified by different forms. With the dawn of proper Knowledge Ignorance
is eradicated. The Non-Self also is eradicated with the knowledge of the Self. The Non-Self
does not have a separate form fit to be the object of Ignorance other than the form which ought
to be eradicated with the help of proper Knowledge. Hence, the Non-Self cannot be the object
of Ignorance. Therefore, by applying the law of Residue (Parisesanyaya), it is accomplished
that the Self is the object of Ignorance. In this way it is established that the Self or Brahman is
verily the substratum as well as object of Ignorance (Logic is mainly based on
Naiskarmyasiddhi – 3/1 Candrika).

LIGHT IS THE SUBSTRATUM AS WELL AS OBJECT of DARKNESS

In support of this conclusion mentioned above, the analogy of light and darkness posited is
apparently beautiful. But all the same it does not bear an exact consistency. In reply to this
some say that the tenth substance ‘darkness’ though contradictory by nature, exists under its
substratum light making the latter object prominent. This fact is proved by the theory of
Agreement in Presence and Agreement in Absence (Anvaya-vyatireka-siddha). As soon as light
is kindled, darkness also appears as its shadow. Even when light is not kindled, the intensity
and rarity of darkness occur according to insufficient and sufficient light which is the
substratum of darkness. The fact is not that there is no existence of light. It is because of the
insufficiency and sufficiency of the objectified light by ‘darkness’ that pitch darkness and thin
darkness are felt even when the light is not illumined. So darkness does not account for the
non-existence of light. Hence it is established that in spite of being contradictory by nature,
light is the substratum as well as subject of darkness.

INDIVIDUAL SOUL (JIVA): Supreme Consciousness (Brahma Caitanya) reflected on

Ignorance (Ajnana) is called Jiva or Individual Soul. This is called the theory of reflection
(Pratibimbavada). Two more doctrines are there, namely, Avachedavada (theory of limitation)
and Abhasavada (theory of false phenomenon). According to this doctrine, individual soul
(Jiva) is considered as eternal (2/3/11), and eternally conscious (Nitya-Caitanya) by nature.
Though it is all-pervading, it is being of the nature of Brahman, admitted as an imaginary part
of the Supreme Brahman under the bondage of Ignorance, and of the middle size of the internal
organ (antahkarana) (2\3\13) and having the sense of doer-ship as well as enjoyer-ship
(2/3/14). The individual or embodied soul is controlled by the Lord (2/3/41). The Ignorance on
which Brahman is reflected, is called the causal body (Karana Sarira) of the Individual Soul.
The aggregate of the five vital forces, mind, intellect (Buddhi) and ten senses is called the Linga
sarira. The Individual limiting adjunct (Jiva-Caitanya), reflected in the mindset (antahkarana)
is called Pramata. The gross body of the Individual Soul is made from the process of
Pancikarana of the five gross matters. Besides all these, there is another body which is abiding
in the Linga Sarira and formed of the aggregate of the five rudimentary matters is called the
Subtle Body (suksma sarira). The heat that is actually felt in contact with the gross body is
actually the property of the Subtle Body (4/2/11). This aggregate of four types of bodies
mentioned above and possessed by Individual Soul is known as Pancakosa (five sheaths) and
the aggregate of three bodies with the exception of the gross one is known as Puryyastaka.
Owing to this fact of possessing the sense of ego of the Self (Atman) in the four bodies, this
miserable worldly journey in the form of series of birth and death is attained by the Individual
Soul (Jiva).

SADHANA (MEANS):- On being performed the daily obligatory duties (Nityakarma) and
those on special occasion (Naimittikakarma) with disinterested motive along with the
performance of Sama (restraint of the outgoing mental propensities) and Dama (the restraint
of the external sense organs), good deeds (3/4/26-27) etc., the expiation of the sin from the
mind (antahkarana) is effected and as a result there arises desire for knowledge (Vividisa).
Then the person with one- pointed mind, acquired by dint of worship, performance of four
disciplines (Sadhanacatustaya), being somehow detached from the feeling of body as the self
born out of discrimination is motivated towards the deliberation of Brahman. A person who
has undergone all these is competent one to have Knowledge as demonstrated by this scriptural
text. According to the inherent instinct (Samskara) aspirants are motivated towards the path of
knowledge (Jnanamarga) for immediate liberation (sadymukti) and path of worship (upasana
marga) for emancipation by stages (kramamukti) as well. Among the first ones, one who is the
best competent and dissuaded from all the obstacles, for him the knowledge that ‘I am
Brahman’ (Aham Brahmasmi), the attributeless Supreme Knowledge dawns just at listening
the aphorism ‘Tattvamasi’ (Thou art That). But those who are below this level of perfection,
adhere to the means of doing Sravana (hearing of Brahman), Manana (constant thinking on
Brahman) etc. Through the process of Sravana and Manana on Brahman, improbabilities are
desisted and the process of nididhyasana (constant deliberation with same stream of ideas)
dissuades one from giving rise to contrary thoughts. And when nididhyasana reaches its
maturity, it leads to Samadhi. The eight yogas expounded by Patanjali are acknowledged as
auxiliary to this. While undergoing this process, the intensely dispassionate competent aspirant
realizes the significance of the word ‘Thou’ (‘Tvam’ padartha - 3/2/1-10) by way of
discrimination of the differentiation of the five sheaths (Pancakosaviveka) and as a result he
realizes that he is separate from these five sheaths (‘Sariracatustaya’ as mentioned above),
moreover his substratum is of the nature of pure consciousness
(suddhacaitanyamatrasvarupa). Not only that, the realization of the significance of the word
‘That’ (Tat) also runs parallel from this time and the knowledge that the Supreme Brahman
(Paramesvara) is really bereft of any adjunct, neither omniscient nor omnipotent, rather He is
of the nature of attributeless pure consciousness (caitanya) dawns in the aspirant. A competent
person of this kind practices to look at this visible world as dream-like appearance
(Pratibhasika) and gradually becomes established in it. For such a person it is not possible
further to perform the daily obligatory duties and those on special occasion
(nityanaimittikakarma). For a competent person of this kind who has reached the final stage of
the orders of life (mendicancy life - Caturthasrami), for them, Acarya Sankara has rejected the
reconciliation of Knowledge and action (jnana and karma) (commentary on the Gita 3/1). Due
to the cessation of contrary thoughts through the process of nididhyasana (constant deliberation
with same stream of ideas) like “I am of the nature of pure consciousness”, I am non-different
from ‘the pure attributeless Brahman’ (4/1/3); in such a competent one the knowledge of the
attributeless Brahman and Atman (Brahmatmajnana) i.e. the knowledge that ‘I am Brahman’
generated from the text ‘Tattvamasi’ dawns. And one aspiring after both the godly majesty in
Brahmaloka (the world of Brahman) and emancipation becomes inclined to worship (upasana).
The term ‘upasana’ (the formation is – upa+as+anat+ap) means ‘staying in proximity’; that
means contemplation on the chosen deity with uninterrupted mental modification in the form
of the chosen deity like the unbroken stream of oil. All kinds of worships are verily meant for
qualified Brahman (Sagunabrahman) with an exception of the worship of ‘Om’ (1/3/4). The
attributeless Supreme Brahman while associated with Ignorance is admitted as Brahman
possessed of qualities (Saguna-Brahman); some statements from annotation like “dvirupam hi
Brahma avagamyatenamarupavikarabhedopadhivisistam tadviparitam ca
sarvopadhivivarjitam, “sarvakaranatvat tu vikardharmairapi ... paramisvarah upasyatvena
nirdisyate” can be cited for evidence. The meditation (upasana) of the Qualified Brahman
(Saguna Brahma) is of two types— meditation based on symbol (Pratikalambana) and
meditation without symbol (Apratikalambana). Meditation without symbol (those who do not
depend on symbol) is called Aham-graha-upasana (meditation based on self-identity with
divinity). In this kind of meditation one, supposing himself as of the nature of pure
consciousness is to deliberate on his non-differentiation with the Qualified Brahman.
Daharavidya (Cha-8\1), Sandilyavidya (Cha-3\14) — these meditations are classified under
this (Aham-graha-upasana). This kind of meditation results in emancipation by stages
(Kramamukti). Again there exists various kinds of meditations based on symbols
(Pratikopasana) yielding to a variety of results like the achievement of Vidyulloka (the world
of fire) etc. Also the meditation on Brahman with form (Sakara Brahman) based on symbols
is admitted in this doctrine; for evidence, statements like “Prthivyadyupadhisambandhat
tadakaratam iva pratipadyate… Brahmanah akaravisesopadisah upasanarthah na
virudhyate.” can be cited from the annotation. Sruti also bears the evidence of Brahman with
form for being worshiped — “‘hiranmayah purusah… hiranyasmasruh hiranyakesah’ (Cha:
1\6\6), ‘Vahusobhamanamumam haimavatim’” (Kena- 3\12) etc. It is very conspicuous here
that by the words ‘sakara upasana’ he has accepted all the personified gods like Siva, Visnu,
Sakti etc. as demonstrated in various scriptures. So, this doctrine must be admitted as non-
sectarian (asampradayik) one. This worship of Brahman with form based on symbols and
images gradually transforms into meditation without symbol (Apratika upasana) and results
in bringing emancipation by stages to the accomplished aspirant (Sadhaka).A person in whose
heart is reflected the image of his chosen deity at all times and under all circumstances, is an
accomplished person (Siddhapurusa). Almost all well-known forms of spiritual practices like
performance of virtuous activities along with the following of Sama (restraint of the outgoing
mental propensities) and Dama (restraint of the external sense organs), Svadhyaya (studying
scriptures or good lessons regularly), dispassion for worldly things, remembering and singing
Lord’s name, Japam, meditation on chosen deity etc. are acknowledged as various practices in
this doctrine. As for instance, some statements from annotation like‘Paramesvaram
bhagavantam abhigamanopadanejyasvadhyayogaih’, ‘bhagavatah abhigamanadilaksanam
aradhanam ajasram ananyacittataya abhipreyate’ can be cited. Above all, it is taken for
granted that the illumination of the Supreme Knowledge and liberation (moksa) come solely
by the grace of God — tadanugrahahetukenaiva ca vijnanena moksa siddhi (commentary on
Brahmasutra).

LIBERATION (MUKTI):- As a result of the dawning of knowledge that ‘I am Brahman’

on a person who practises the knowledge of non-qualified Brahman, his primordial ignorance
(mulavidya) gets destroyed; he then becomes established in Brahman, his own former real
nature; just like the regaining of the necklace around his own neck, of which he was in oblivion.
This is called instantaneous liberation (Sadymukti). It is something inadventitious and eternal.
In his point of view there arises cessation of his own body and everything along with this
empirical world. just as the pure water poured in pure water becomes verily the same (4/4/4),
so also the differentiating adjuncts being destroyed, he verily becomes the Brahman which is
eternal, pure, illumined by nature. In such state only, the devotee (Sadhaka) attains to the state
of ‘tadetat Brahma apurvam anaparam’ (Br. - 2\5\19) etc. and “trisu api kalesu
akartrtvabhoktrtvasvarupam Brahmahamasmi” as described in the sruti and commentary
respectively. Thus, his own body appears to him as the lifeless slough of a snake, cast off and
lies in the ant-hill. In his outlook there does remain no Prarabdha Karma (Karma which has
already started bearing fruit) any more. Neither his Prana (Linga Sarira) departs from body,
rather he becomes completely merged in the existence-knowledge-bliss (sat-cit-ananda)
Brahman (4/2/13). But in the viewpoint of others he seems to be enjoying this empirical world
like dream or illusory mirage as long as he lives in the body due to his Prarabdha Karma (karma
which has already started bearing fruit). Brahman which stands as the substratum of his looking
at the world as dream or mirage in his eyes is manifested always as non-differentiated from
him. By the grace of God when an aspirant becomes fully established in such a state as
mentioned in the preceding sentence, that state is called the state of ‘Bhavamukha’. And the
establishment in the state mentioned first is called nisedhamukhavastha. An aspirant who has
realized qualified Brahman, to him Brahman is manifested always but not of that kind as a
realizer of non-qualified Brahman feels himself ‘ahameva adhastat’ (Cha: 7\25\1) inasmuch
as Brahman being reflected identical with him. But in the case of the realizer of the qualified
Brahman such experience is not possible on account of his being separately established in the
true sense of the term with the Supreme Brahman even after liberation.

The liberation in case of the realizer of the qualified Brahman is called emancipation by stages
(Kramamukti) or Avantara Mukti. It is called so because after having enjoyed the regal majesty
in the Brahmaloka (the world of Brahman) one attains the instantaneous liberation (Sadymukti)
at the close of the dissolution of the universe (Kalpa). If one who is antipathetic to the worldly
enjoyment can acquire knowledge of the non-qualified Brahman by dint of his practice of that
knowledge of the non-qualified Brahman in the world of Brahman, he attains to the
instantaneous liberation even before the dissolution of the universe (Kalpa) without being
hindered. However, after the Prarabdha Karma being exhausted, the successful aspirant
(sadhaka) departing from the gross body (4/2/1) and being guided by the presiding deities
(4/3/1) along the path of gods (devayanamarga) reaches the world of Brahman (4\3\7) with
Lingasarira which is encompassed by the subtle body. He, then, out of his own will (4/4/8)
creates a body fit for enjoyment in the world of Brahman and enjoys various kinds of objects
of enjoyment either being embodied or disembodied or being associated with multiple bodies.
As a result of being associated with volition (satya-sankalpatvadi-gunayukta) etc. such a man
of knowledge has no other ruler or lord to rule over him (svadhina-4/4/9). But he does not
possess the power of creation etc. of this universe (4/4/17). There is no return for the released
soul (4/4/22), rather at the time when the final dissolution of the world is imminent, being
directed by Hiranyagarbha (Conditioned Brahman) , he attains the supreme state of Visnu after
acquiring the knowledge of non-qualified Brahman as well as self-realization (4/3/10-11). In
the case of the worship of the qualified Brahman, there is a little variety – the successful
aspirant attains intimate communion (sayujya mukti) with Hiranyagarbha (conditioned
Brahman) if the worship (upasana) is perfectly ripened and is performed with all the
accessories; then at the time of the dissolution of the world, being directed by Hiranyagarbha,
he attains instantaneous liberation preceded by the knowledge of non-qualified Brahman
(nirguna-Brahmavidya). And then there is no return for him. In the case of the worship
(upasana) not being performed with all the accessories (anga), the successful aspirant attains
salvation like staying in proximity with God (Samipya) or residing in the same world with God
(Salokya) and they again return to this world. This is the monism (Advaita) of Acarya Sankara
in a nutshell.

THE MONISTS ARE BELIEVERS IN BRAHMAN, NOT ILLUSIONISTS

The doctrine of monism (Advaitavada) which does not acknowledge the existence of any
absolute entity with the exception of Brahman is held as Mayavada (theory of illusion) by the
opponents. It is by all means unreasonable. As the understanding of the letters ‘Ka’ etc. is
generated by taking up the upper stroke drawn above them along with the letters, so also
perception concerning Brahman is generated for the individual souls by ascertaining the nature
of the universe taking resort to indescribable Maya or Illusion. Only for being the reason (hetu)
if the term Mayavada (theory of illusion) is ascribed to the doctrine of Brahman (Brahmavada),
then the perceiver of the letter must be titled as the perceiver of the upper stroke of the letter.
But it is not reasonable. In case the term Mayavadin (Illusionist) is supposed to be ascribed to
somebody, it should be exclusively ascribed to those who acknowledge Maya (Ignorance) as
the Absolute entity. But, Advaitins say Maya (Ignorance) is not a doctrine pertaining to
anybody, rather the significance of all lies in the realization of Brahman. Therefore, all are
believers in Brahman (Brahmavadins).

Note: - References which appear as 4/4/9 have been given from Brahmasutra. It
should be read like 4th adhyaya, 4th Pada, 9th sutra.