Supreme is Real; Duality is False

Invocation

(Kaivalyakalpadruma on Svārājyasiddhi, Prakaraṇa 2)

[May Goddess Sarasvatī, whose lotus-like lovely hands with gem-studded bracelets munificently bear the signs of granting boons and freedom from fear, a book and a rosary, who is an unmatched beauty in a white attire, is charmingly complexioned like jasmines and pearls and whose face resembles the moon, reside in our organ of speech.]

Introduction

The Upaniṣads teach, succinctly in some places and elaborately in others, that Brahman, the Supreme, is the only reality, the world is ‘mithyā, false’ and the ‘jīva, the soul’ is but Brahman. The Lord has imparted this in the Bhagavadgītā. Sage Vyāsa, in His terse aphorisms known as the Brahmasūtras, and Bhagavatpāda, in His lucid and in-depth exposition thereof, the Brahmasūtrabhāṣya, have demonstrated that this is the scripture’s final purport and defended it by considering and compellingly confuting the various objections raised against it by subscribers to other schools of thought. With the Brahmasūtras and the bhāṣya thereon as basis, I shall present some of the objections and their rebuttals in a series of discourses. My aim is two-fold; to help you votaries of Bhagavatpāda appreciate that Advaita-vedānta as championed by Him is flawless and impregnable and to gratify the yearning of many to hear elements of the Brahmasūtrabhāṣya from me during this cāturmāsya.

Brahman, World and the Soul

Bhagavatpāda has distilled the scripture’s conclusive thrust into half a verse thus:

[Brahman is real; the universe is mithyā, false; the soul is Brahman indeed, naught else.]

That which is never sublated is termed satya, real. There is only one such entity and that is Brahman, the Supreme. The universe is not real in the said sense and, thus, is said to be ‘mithyā, false.’ Misconstruing the Vedāntin’s position that the world is mithyā, many have objected,

‘We see the world and interact with others and yet you claim that it is quite unreal. That is ridiculous.’ They fail to realize that what the Vedāntin means when he says that the world is ‘mithyā, false’ is that, not being unchangingly timeless, it is not absolutely real like Brahman, nor is it wholly non-existent like the horn of a hare.

Objection: Soul Disparate from the Creator

While theistic schools in general hold that God created the world, Advaita-vedānta is unique in affirming that the jīva or soul is non-different from the Supreme. Up in arms against this, a disputant protests as follows. If the soul is the same as God, it follows that the jīva is the maker of the cosmos. That, however, cannot be the case, as it is conceivable that he would have created and subjected himself to even what is quite unfavourable to him like hell, diseases and decrepitude; he, would, on the contrary have effected only what is beneficial to him.¹

Another argument¹ advanced by him is: Generally, on our accomplishing any notable task, be it delivering a speech or authoring a book, we remember it and acknowledge having done so. There is, however, no instance of anyone reminiscing at any time, ‘I created this world.’ So, the soul cannot be the creator and equating it with God is improper.

A further objection² of his is as follows. If the soul is the maker of the universe, it must also possess the power to withdraw its creation at will. But as a matter of fact, it is unable to shed even its current body without strain; many suffer much preceding death. So, the soul cannot be the creator and, thus, is not one with God.

Two Viewpoints in Advaita-vedānta

Advaita-vedānta adopts two viewpoints; the ‘vyāvahārika, empirical’ perspective and the ‘pāramārthika, ultimate’ position. That jīvas are many, the world is experientially valid, God is superior to the jīvas and is the world’s creator, preserver and destroyer are spoken of from the former, duality-centric standpoint. From the highest standpoint, however, Vedānta does not admit any duality and avers that there is only Brahman, the Absolute.

Queries and Answers in the State of Duality Only

Approaching his Guru, Bāṣkali entreated Bādhva to teach him the Truth; the Guru remained silent. Bāṣkali pleaded again but the Guru maintained silence. When the disciple asked for the third time, Bādhva, the Veda narrates, said:

(Cited as śruti in the bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 3.2.17) [I teach but you fail to grasp; the Ātman is utterly tranquil.]

The Guru clarified that he had been imparting the Truth but Bāṣkali was not realizing that It is absolute quiescence.

About God in the form of Dakṣiṇāmūrti, the Guru, it is said:

[A query or answer has to be couched in the language of duality. In non-duality’s tongue, there is no query or reply.]

Questions and answers are possible only in the state of duality; in the highest state, there is none to teach or ask.

To sum up, Advaita-vedānta acknowledges duality at the empirical level and that God creates the cosmos and is estimable, while the jīva is different from Him and is His worshipper but denies duality from the highest standpoint.

God has no Likes and Dislikes

God creates the universe and gives jīvas experiences in accordance with their karma. He, for instance, fashions heaven and hell to reward the virtuous and penalize the sinful. Unlike the jīva, He has no likes or dislikes.

[He creates by nature. Wholly sated, what could He want?]

God is an ‘āptakāma, one who has no unfulfilled wish’. It is Him that we regard as the world’s creator, not the jīva. ¹

Empirical Soul-God Disparity Reasonable

The opponent directs a fresh salvo thus.¹ Let us take it that the soul is the Supreme. Then, by admitting disparity between them in the vyāvahārika state, you conflictingly unify mutually exclusive non-difference and difference. This charge can be countered with a simple analogy.²

A diamond, a marble tile and a pebble on the road are all only stones but we deal with these three differently. Diamonds are used in ornaments, marbles to beautify floors and pebbles to drive away crows and dogs! Each of these three has a distinct value and utility for us; we do not replace a pebble with a diamond. However, they are but stones that are reducible to valueless and barely distinguishable powder. Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita has said:

[All these are only stones. What is special in a ruby? It has some lustre that is not there in the common stones.]

Similarly, though the soul and the Supreme are, in reality, just non-dual, pure, consciousness, when the Absolute manifests as a jīva, It does not possess the power to create the universe; that belongs only to God. Thus, there can be difference between God and the soul at the empirical level though they are ultimately non-different.

Objections Rooted in Misunderstanding of Advaita

As can be seen, the objections arise since the fact that Advaita-vedānta embraces not just ultimate non-duality but also empirical duality is missed. I shall now narrate an incident to illustrate misconception due to oversight.

Bhagavatpāda has declared in the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi that:

[Among the means to liberation, devotion is the foremost.]

A follower of a dualistic school who had come across this half-verse said, ‘Śaṅkara has stated that bhakti alone is the means to liberation. Only some other Advaitins hold that knowledge alone is its cause. There is no difference between what the preceptors of dualistic schools and Śaṅkara have taught about the means to liberation.’ I told him, ‘You should read Bhagavatpāda’s entire verse and then arrive at what He meant. Its second half is:

[Meditation on one’s true nature is termed ‘bhakti’.]

By limiting yourself to just the first half of the verse, you have come to a mistaken conclusion. The word bhakti has different connotations. Bhagavatpāda has Himself clarified here that His earlier mention of bhakti is in its (scriptural) sense of ‘svasvarūpānusandhāna, meditation on one’s true nature’ and not in its dualistic sense.’

In the various śāstras, the same word can have widely different meanings. Take the word ‘graha’. In the Jyotiṣa-śāstra, it denotes a celestial body. In the Mīmāṁsā-śāstra, it refers to a wooden vessel in which soma juice is kept as seen in the analysis therein of Vedic passages like:

The import of the first sentence is that one should perform a sacrifice with grahas, while that of the second is that one should wipe a graha. If a person takes the word graha here as denoting, as it often does, a celestial body such as the sun or moon, the sentences would seem absurd to him, for there is no possibility of one sacrificing with or wiping, say, the moon. In the Nyāya-śāstra, we see the word ‘graha’ used in the sense of knowledge. Hence, technical words, such as ‘bhakti’ ‘satya’ and ‘mithyā, must be appropriately understood. Misconstruing the words used in Advaita-vedānta, overlooking the standpoints from which non-duality and duality are spoken of therein and, consequently, faulting it is unjustified.

The Two Viewpoints are Śruti-based

The empirical, dualistic standpoint and the absolute, non-dualistic standpoint are not expedient conceptions of Bhagavatpāda to shore up Advaita-vedānta. The śruti itself adopts them and Bhagavatpāda has only faithfully echoed the view of the śruti. An Upaniṣadic teaching is:

The empirical, dualistic viewpoint is presented in the first portion, which means, ‘When there is duality, as it were, one sees another.’ The non-dualistic highest viewpoint is presented in the second part, which means, ‘But when all this has become his (the knower of Brahman’s) Ātman alone, what could one see and by what means?’ It is these dualistic and non-dualistic standpoints brought out in Upaniṣadic passages such as this that Bhagavatpāda has spelt out.

Soul-God Distinction Based on Limiting Adjuncts

To illustrate the apparent distinction between the jīva and God, Bhagavatpāda compares them to ‘ghaṭākāśa, the space within a pot’ and ‘mahākāśa, the vast space outside’.¹ There is, in reality, no difference between the space within a pot and that not delimited by it, for space is homogenous and all-pervasive. Yet, when delimited by a pot, it is termed ‘ghaṭākāśa, pot-space’. When the pot breaks up, it ceases to be conceived of as limited in any sense. In śāstraic parlance, the pot in the example is termed space’s ‘upādhi, limiting adjunct’. Brahman with ‘avidyā, ignorance’ or the intellect as Its upādhi is the jīva, while Brahman with Māyā as upādhi is God. Just as we distinguish between the pot-space and the space outside in view of the limiting adjunct, the pot, but not otherwise, we differentiate between jīva and God at the empirical level due to the upādhis concerned but not from the standpoint of the Truth.

When it is understood that Vedāntins admit duality at the empirical level and affirm non-duality from the standpoint of the Truth, there is no room for objections of the kind seen. All should strive to comprehend Advaita-vedānta correctly, tread the path shown by Bhagavatpāda and attain beatitude.

॥ हर नमः पार्वतीपतये । हर हर महादेव ॥