The Indian culture, since time immemorial, has been basically spiritual. Our Vedic Sages, out of their limitless compassion for mankind, conducted inquiry into the nature of the Self, and of the Supreme Brahman, and of their mutual relation and of their relation to the world of objects. Adi Sankara was one of them, who had made original and landmark contributions that have far-reaching implications. Acharya never claimed any originality. Instead, he emphasized again and again that whatever he said was nothing but the good old Upanishadic Truth- "Esha Dharmah Sanatanah", which means "This is the most ancient Law".

Philosophy of Sri Sankara

Sri Sankara's philosophy is so crystal clear, so simple and bold that it could be presented in a plain hemistich:
 "Brahma Satyam, Jagan Mithya, Jivo Brahmaiva Naaparah"
- which means " The Brahman is the reality. The phenomenal world is illusory. The embodied Soul is indeed the Brahman itself, and is not different from it".
 At the same time, his philosophy is so subtle and deep, yet so high, vast and profound that volumes may not suffice to exhaust its implications and ramifications. However, let us try to analyse briefly what is hidden in this pearl-like hemistich.

Why Enquiry into the Self ?

Self-realization is not a ready-made stuff available in the market. One has to approach in all humility a qualified master of Vedanta and request him to teach Upanishadic declarations, their ultimate purport and the path to Liberation. Sankara himself was a prodigy; yet he travelled all the way from Kalady in Southernmost corner of India to the far off Narmada in Central India to learn the Upanishadic truth from the preceptor Govinda Bhagavadpada, so that what he learnt might be 100% authentic and strictly according to the tradition. The Vedists always feel it safer to travel by the trodden path to reach the goal. This process of hearing the Upanishadic lessons from the teacher is known as "Sravana".

After learning the ultimate purport of the Upanishadic declarations, one must reflect upon them with total "Shraddha" (Absolute Faith). Faith is a vision, a unique power, by means of which man comprehends spiritual truths, just as he comprehends material objects by means of his physical senses. The man is mainly a product of faith; as one's faith is, so is the man (Shraddhamaya-ayam Purusho, Yo Yacchraddhah Sa Eva Sah) - Gita: 17-3.

With this positive and active form of faith, an aspirant should conduct logical investigation into the upanishadic truth. This investigation is known as "Manana" (Reflection). Logic is only a tool and an instrument. It must be made to serve the scriptures in leading us to the realization of the Truth. Sankara gives a place of honour to the scriptural authority over and above logic.

Now let us turn to Sankara's hemistich quoted above. It consists of three statements:

1. Brahman is the reality
2. World is illusory
3. The embodied Self is verily Brahman itself, and is not different from it.

These statements are very significant. Since the dawn of history, man has been always feeling that he is being harassed from all directions by innumerable miseries caused by the forces of nature and repeated birth and death. The various earthy remedies do not solve his problems. Thus, having no other go, he had to turn to religion for help as a last refuge. The ever-increasing number of temples, churches, synagogues, mosques, viharas and the like throughout the world, with their constant prayers, chantings, preachings, bhajans, ringing bells, cries of devotees etc., bear testimony to this.

This being the fact, it is the first and foremost duty of philosophy and religion to help man in diagnosing the nature of his miseries and in tackling them cleverly, efficiently and effectively. Hence, by means of its highly scientific investigations, the Vedanta diagnose all the problems on the following way:
All our sorrows are mainly due to the triple ignorance of ours:

• We do not know what the Reality (the Supreme Power that controls the world) is;
• What the world about us is; and
•  What we ourselves really are.

The above 3 statements of Sankara are intended to enlighten us on these three points. So, let us now try to understand what these statements mean.

1. Brahman is the Reality:

What is Brahman ? The Upanishads tell us that Brahman is beyond the reach of eye-sight, speech and mind even. Language is incapable of describing and defining Brahman, because it is devoid of all attributes (Nirguna) and is completely unrelated to anything (Asanga). Hence, Vedanta has to take recourse to a circuitous negative way 'not this, not this' to indicate the nature of Brahman.

Yet, the advaitins make bold attempts to define Brahman in positive terms also- as "Sat-Chid-Ananda" (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss). Please remember that these three are not 3 attributes of Brahman, but a single whole 'Sachidananda' which is Brahman itself (Swarupa-lakshana). The Upanishads also declare Brahman as the creator, sustainer , destroyer and also recreator of the world. Hence, Brahman is the efficient cause - the agent in the process of creating the world- just as the potter is in the process of creating a pot.

The scriptures proceed further: The Supreme Reality was alone (with no second) before the creation of the world. It desired to become many, created the entire world, entered it as this embodied Self, without itself undergoing any change in the process and has become all. Thus, Brahman is also the material cause of the world, just as clay is the material cause of all the earthen wares and the gold is the material cause of all gold ornaments. If Brahman is understood in this fashion, then all world is correctly understood. In this way, Brahman is the one possessing all forms, all colours, all smells, all desires, all tastes, all actions etc.; and as omnipresent, omnipotent and author of all scriptures.

Thus, we find two sets of definitions of Brahman:  the first one is completely negative and the second one very much positive. Why this contradiction ?. Sankara provides us with a bold solution, strictly in accordance with the Upanishads. He says clearly that the" contradiction is rather apparent than real".

 The Upanishads speak of Brahman in two different voices, because they deal with the subject on two different levels- the one on the higher level and the other on the lower level. The first one is in the negative way and it is about the higher Brahman (Param Brahma), the Pure Self, which is devoid of all attributes (Nirgunam), all distinctive marks and is unthinkable and indefinable and in which all world is negated. This higher Brahman is the ultimate Reality and the realization of this Brahman constitutes final liberation. Because it is attributeless, and is with no second, the upanishads have to indicate it in a negative and indirect manner.

But, there is also Brahman on the lower level (Aparam Brahma). It has attributes (Sagunam) and this is God (Iswara). It is this Iswara who is the efficient cause of the world of diversity and it is He who is  also the material cause of the same. On that ground, He possesses attributes beyond number and He is omniscient and omnipotent. Hence, He is again different from the world and is beyond it also; but the world cannot be different from Him and cannot be beyond Him. Indeed clay can afford to remain different from pot and be beyond it. But, how can pot remain different from  clay and be beyond from  the same. In view of all these, it is only logical to conclude that this Iswara is within the world as its controller (Antaryamin). Worshipping this Iswara (Sagunopasana) will bring His grace and it helps the seeker in realizing the higher, attributeless Brahman and in gaining beautitude. Thus, this Iswara and the devotion to Him are good indeed. And what is good is always conducive to what is better and what is the best and it can never be an enemy to them.

All right. Let us accept the existence of the attributeless Brahman and also of the Brahman with attributes. Now, how are these two 'related' to each other ? And how am I, the embodied Self, related to each of these two ? To understand the term 'relation' (Sambandha), let us take the example of 'lily'. When we say 'lily is blue', we take it for granted that there exists the lily, a subject on the one hand, and the blue colour, an attribute, on the other and that there is also a relation in between, connecting both of them. Here, we also presume that the subject lily is an entity totally different from the attribute, blue colour. Now, let us see where the 'relation' stands. Is it different from the lily(subject) and from colour(attribute), or not different ? No third alternative is possible. If the second alternative is chosen, Then there would remain only two entities- lily and colour.

On the other hand, if we choose the first alternative, then this relation R1 must have another relation R2 with lily and again R3 with blue colour. Any attempt to prove these relations logically will lead to 'infinite regress' (Anavastha). This difficulty with regard to the 'subject-attribute' relation would be there also with the 'support-supported' relation, 'cause-effect' relation etc.

Hence, it may be safely deduced:

1. All relations are logically self-contradictions and hence they are only imaginary and not real.
2. The twins, like 'subject-attribute' etc. that are experienced invariably together in our finite worldly life of everyday, are in fact not totally different from each other.
3. These relations have no part to play in the infinite experience and with regard to the infinite ones- viz., Brahman, God and Self- which are one and the same in the ultimate analysis and according to the scriptures.
4. Hence, when we speak of some relation as existing among the three, the concept is bound to be imaginary and unreal.

However, since the beginning of creation, a worldly experience of false difference among the three seems to persist. Because their mutual difference is untrue, their mutual relation too must be naturally untrue and imaginary. That is why different religions describe this relation differently. The Truth is absolute and it will be the same to all in all ages and in all places. On the other hand, the untruth differs from person to person, from age to age and from place to place. Hence, the Advaita metaphysicians too have brought forward different and conflicting explanation of this alleged relation. They have done so depending on different contexts and on different mental and intellectual make-ups of their respective students. Yet, their ultimate aim has always been only to establish the theory of non-duality of Brahman and Self and not to found any thesis on their relation.

Self-Cognition

The Supreme Brahman was alone, without any second, and developed a desire to cognize. He could cognize Himself only. He made Himself the object of His own cognition. For this, the Supreme Self looked at Himself  as Himself and had become the I-consciousness. From this arose the magic power (Mayasakti), which is the root cause of all differentiation and duality. From that arose many embodied selves with mutual differences. He desired to become many and became many accordingly; but there was nothing different from Him (Prabodhasudhakara). Thus the embodied Self is the same as the Supreme Self, but limited by the adjunct (Upadhi), an internal organ - just as the pot-Ether is nothing but the all-pervading Ether; but limited by the adjunct, the pot.

It is only through a long process that the Supreme Brahman became the embodied-Self - a process in which He first became the lower Brahman (Iswara) and then other lower Gods and so on. During the first cognition, when He had His first I-consciousness, He developed an energy(Sakti or Maya) which had twin potentiality- the one is of manifesting (Vikshepa) and the other is of veiling (Avarana). When this Mayasakti started manifesting, it gave the Supreme Brahman a name and a form. At this stage, Brahman is called Iswara- the Lord, the Creator, the Life and essence of the world, the omniscient, the omnipotent, omnipresent etc. Here the veiling power was at the lowest ebb and the manifesting power at the peak. Hence, the Iswara was aware of His identity with the Supreme Brahman. So Iswara is almost the Supreme Brahman itself, limited by the adjunct 'Maya'.

This Iswara too devised a means to cognize Himself and so developed an I-consciousness that became a lower god, who too became, in the same way, a god of still lower level and so on. Thus a series of gods came into existence and finally the god became the embodied-Self and became many. And also, in the form of this Self, He entered the world, He had created with name and form. In this process of becoming and manifesting, its veiling power grows stronger and stronger and its manifesting capacity grows weaker and weaker, in a sort of inverse proportion, at every stage of the above process of creation. At the level of the embodied-Self, the said power is called 'Ignorance' (Ajnana, Avidya). Here its manifesting power is miserably low and the veiling power is formidably very high. Consequently, the embodied-Self has totally lost sight of his identity with the Supreme and has only a very insignificant knowledge and creative capacity. The condition is worse in the cases of still lower forms of life.Hence, the Advaitins define Iswara as Brahman conditioned or limited by Maya; and the embodied Self as the same Brahman limited by the Ajnana or Avidya. The Maya and Ajnana are the same energy in two different stages.

Thus starting from Iswara, the Lord of the universe, down to the lowest creature, the microscopic bacterium, in all conscious beings, this pure consciousness inheres as their immutable essence, under different conditions and limitations, which are after all , parts of phenomenal world and hence, are illusory.

The liberated sages (Jivanmukta) have realized Brahman by destroying the veiling forces. Hence, like Iswara, they could meditate on the higher attributeless Brahman. But there are many in whom the ignorance is strong and hence cannot mediatate on Brahman. For their sake, the scriptures prescribe the worship of,  and meditation on Iswara. Iswara is only the Brahman, but limited by Maya. By worshipping Him and by getting His Grace, an intelligent individual would be able, in due course, to realize his real identity with Him and later with the unlimited pure-consciousness, Brahman, and to attain liberation.

Similarly, for the benefit of those who cannot worship even this Iswara directly, The scriptures recommend the worship of still lower gods- Virat and Vaiswanara.
For the next lower stage of people Gods like Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Agni and so on and so on.

While teaching us in the above fashion, Sankara does not advise us to bypass, eschew or disregard Iswara in our spiritual development for attaining liberation. He exhorts us that it is only by worshipping and realizing God and by getting His Grace that one can pass beyond Him to realize the Self, the Supreme Brahman. The world is 100% dependent on God and the individual is too weak and is therefore badly in need of Him to cross over this 'Samsara' and reach the Supreme Brahman. If God is disregarded, the world would then put more and more pressure on the seeker and it would throw him in the whirlpool of 'samsara', the cycle of birth-and-death. It is a Corporate set-up and you need the good certificate from everyone for your promotion towards the Brahman.

Is Iswara a reality ?

We know that the pot is nothing but clay. But the clay is more than the pot. Similarly God is reality indeed. But reality is more than God. His adjunct 'Mayasakti' is to be viewed neither as real nor as unreal (Anirvachaniya) and it is responsible for His Godhood and Lordhood (Iswaratva). The Lordhood is related to and dependent on the world-creation. Without a reference to the world, how can there be Lordship ?  So, when the world is negated with its root-cause 'Maya' as unreal, where could the Godhood of God lie ? Therefore, that also gets negated automatically along with the world and its cause. So the existence of such a personal God, as the creator, redeemer, destroyer, saviour etc., cannot be proved logically. He is postulated as a practical necessity to explain the existence of phenomenal world. The King is the ruler as long as the State continues to be in his hands. But the moment the State goes out of his hand, he is no more the ruler and the king becomes one with the ruled subject. Thus "Brahman alone is the reality, and the Reality alone is Brahman".

2. The World is Illusory:

All our experiences, perception, inference etc. are part and parcel of the world. hence, they too are illusory. How can the illusory experiences decide the issue ? The reality of the phenomenal world cannot be established by the wordly means of cognition. The phenomenal world consists of parts, and hence it must be the modification (Karya) of certain material cause. The Upanishads invariably describe the world as having been born of Brahman-Atman. This description has a beautifully logical unity. For, the world is astonishingly orderly and behaves in a meticulously set manner. Hence, it must have originated only from an intelligent cause. The Upanishads also identify that intelligent cause  with Brahman-Atman that has no second. So it is wise to accept what the Upanishads teach us.According to the Upanishads, the world is the effect of the cause 'Brahman' and the world has no existence separate from the Brahman. We may conclude that Brahman alone is real and the world of many is an illusion.

3. The embodied Self is verily Brahman itself and is not different from it :

For more details on this subject, please read the book "Sri Sankara" by Dr. S. Sankaranarayanan- Chapter VI.

Back to Homepage