The Meaning of 'Real' in Advaita Vedānta

Author(s): Richard Brooks

Source: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Oct., 1969), pp. 385-398
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1397631
Accessed: 06-10-2019 07:26 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Philosophy East and West

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Richard Brooks The meaning of 'real' in Advaita Vedanta

REALITY AND APPEARANCE

Advaita Vedanta is at once the most widely held philoso

India today, the most startling in its claims about the nature of
our perception of it, and the most difficult for Westerners
let alone accept. Volumes of literature have been written bot
in exposition of it, but perhaps the most famous statement of i
the following sloka (stanza) from the Bdlabodhini, a work u
to that most famous of all Advaitins, Sri afiakaracarya (A.D

slokdrdhena pravaksyami yad uktati graithakotibhi

brahma satyarh jagan mnithyd jivo brahmaiva ndparah.
With half a sloka I will declare what has been said in thousands of volumes:
Brahman is real, the world is false, the soul is only Brahman, nothing else.

That is to say, there is only one thing which can, properly speaking, be called
"real" (sat), and that is Brahman. All else which we might call "real,"
including the human soul, is identical with that one reality. Anything which
cannot be so identified with that one reality is "false" (mithyd), or in other
words is only apparently real-is only an appearance, an illusion (maya).
This is a remarkable claim, indeed! It implies that the whole of the world
of our ordinary experience is an illusion. It implies that you are not really
reading this article, that I did not really write it, that the room you are in does
not really exist, that you cannot really look out your window and see real
buildings, sky, and clouds, etc. It implies that all these things are only
apparently so. This is what Advaita means when it claims that the world is
"false."

And when Advaita states that the world is "false," in the sense of illusory,
that must mean not only the external physical world, but the internal psychical
world as well, since both are experienced as pluralistic and Advaita maintains
that reality is unitary. As Ras Vihari Das puts it in his article, "The Falsity
of the World":

The world does not mean merely the external visible world with its sensible
qualities. It means this and more than this.... In fact whatever can be pre-
sented to us either externally or internally, to the mind or the senses forms
part of the world which as a whole as well as every item in it is said to be
false. Falsity is thus asserted of everything that we can sense or feel, think of
or imagine as an object.l

But clearly, the world cannot be totally unreal in the sense of being fictitious
or nonexistent. We do, after all, perceive it. Falsity, then, although it excludes

Richard Brooks is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Oakland University, Rochester,

Michigan.
1 Ras Vihari Das, "The Falsity of the World," Philosophical Quarterly [Amalner] XIX,
no. 2 (July 1943), 80.

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
386 Brooks

reality (sat), does not entail unreality (asat). This is what is meant by calling
the world an illusion. Although an illusion has a peculiar ontological status,
it is not that of nonbeing or nonexistence. The very word 'mithya' seems to
me to bring this out.
The word 'mithya' is a contraction of 'nsithuyd' derived from the root
'/mith', which means either (1) "unite" or "couple," (2) "meet" or "engage"
(in altercation), or (3) "alternate." The word 'mithyd' comes from the third
sense and is used adverbially (often with respect to a person's behavior)
as meaning "invertedly," "contrarily," "improperly," or "incorrectly." This
sense is extended to a nominal form meaning "false." Actually, it would seem
more literal to extend it to "mistaken," that is, "taken or perceived incor-
rectly," even though that translation might not always read well in English,
such as in the sloka quoted above. Such a translation would bring out more
clearly Advaita's claim that the judgments we normally make about the world,
on the basis of our sense perception of it, are mistaken. Certainly, if reality is
unitary, then the plurality of the world cannot be real; we must be mis-per-
ceiving the world and then mis-judging it on the basis of our ignorance of the
truth of the matter.
But why, one might ask, does Advaita take this very unusual attitude
toward the world? Why does Advaita refuse to accept anything except
Brahman to be worthy of the title "real"? Time and again in Advaita liter-
ature, one is confronted with arguments like: "This cannot be real because it is
changing," or "That cannot be real because it is dependent upon something
else for its existence." On the other hand, words like 'eternal', 'immutable',
'unlimited', 'unchanging', and 'permanent' are constantly used in conjunction
with the word 'real' (sat). Why do Advaitins refuse to acknowledge a thing
to be real unless it is eternal, immutable, unlimited, and unchanging? There
are, I believe, a number of considerations involved in an answer to these
questions, but perhaps the most basic of them involves Advaita's definition of
the word 'real'. A discussion of this may help throw light on some of the
basic tenets of Advaita and make those tenets a bit more intelligible-even if
no more credible.
Before turning to Advaita's definition of the word 'real', however, it
would be well to review first what we ordinarily mean in the West by that
term. We find that the word is not used in one single sense, but rather has
a number of different meanings. The following seem to me to be the most
important of these:
1. One common use of the word 'real' is "genuine"-as opposed to
"fraudulent" or "fake." This is what we mean when we speak of "real
diamonds" (as opposed to "paste" diamonds) or "a real Rembrandt" (as
opposed to a forgery).

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
387

2. Another common use is "natural"-as opposed to "artificial." We find

this use in phrases like "a real pond" (as opposed to a man-made pond) or
"a real ruby" (as opposed to a synthetic ruby).
3. Then again, 'real' may mean "nonimaginary" or "nonillusory," e.g.,
real water (as opposed to that seen in a mirage) or a real dagger (as opposed
to the one Macbeth thinks he sees before him). This begins to sound more like
what Advaita seems to be saying.
4. The word 'real' is also used to mean "lasting" or "permanent," which,
again, is very close to the way Advaitins want to use the term. But this would
appear to be an axiological rather than an ontological use of the term in
English, whereas Advaita must clearly be using the term ontologically. That
is to say, this use of the word 'real' seems to imply the application of a system
of values to a situation, beyond the bare description of the facts. Thus, we
speak of "real satisfaction" (as opposed to a temporary satiation of desires)
or "real peace" (as opposed to a temporary cessation of hostilities). For, if
war is fighting and the fighting has stopped, is that not peace? It certainly
would seem so, considering the situation ontologically; that is, considering the
bare state of affairs itself. And since the cessation of fighting is an actual state
of affairs, is not the peace real peace ? The fact that we often do not consider
it so indicates that more than mere description of the situation is involved
in this use of the term 'real'; a system of values, that is, axiology, is involved
as well.

5. Finally, in a more general sense, 'real' means to most English-speaking

people simply "existent," just as does the word 'sat' in Sanskrit.2 This, of
course, does not say very much, but it does rule out purely fictitious entities.
One common criterion for "existent" is "experienceable," a criterion I believe
Advaita wants to use for reality, though this criterion has some unfortunate
implications. More of this later.
Philosophically, the most interesting is the third use of the word 'real'
as "nonillusory" or "nonimaginary." A brief comment on this will serve to
lead into a discussion of Advaita's use of the term.

How do we determine a thing to be illusory or imaginary? One way we

have of determining this in ordinary life is to look at the thing in question
again, or to scrutinize it more carefully. For instance, to take the most com-
mon example from Advaita, when we look at a rope coiled in a dimly lighted
room and misperceive it as a snake, we may take a closer look at our "snake";
upon doing so, the imagined "snake" disappears and we see the rope for what
it is-and for what it had been all along. As Advaita puts it, we sublate the

2 For a detailed discussion of the fact that 'sat' means both "real" and "existent," see
P. T. Raju, "The Conception of Sat (Existence) in anikara's Advaita," Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute XXXVI (1955), 33-45.

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
388 Brooks

erroneous "snake" percept with a veridical rope percept. Sublation, then, is

one way of determining that a previously perceived thing was unreal in the
sense of "illusory" or "imaginary."
Another way we have of determining that a thing is not real in this sense
is by subjecting it to a wider range of scrutiny; for instance, trying to touch
it as well as see it, or looking at it under different circumstances, or submitting
it to some kind of test. In effect, this is what Macbeth does when he sees the
dagger in front of him. He says:

Is this a dagger which I see before me,

The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
... I see thee still,
And on thy blade and dudgeon gouts of blood,
Which was not so before. There's no such thing:
It is the bloody business which informs
Thus to mine eyes.

This is also what we do when we see a stick apparently "bent" where it enters
the water; we pull the stick out of the water, see that it is straight, and
decide that its bent appearance in the water must be an illusion. In all such
cases, we examine the object in question under a wide range of circumstances
and determine that our initial perception of it must have been mistaken
because that perception is not consistent with the rest of our experience. Ex-
amining its consistency with a wider range of experience, then, is another
way we have of determining that a thing is unreal in the sense of "illusory"
or "imaginary."
We are now in a better position to appreciate Advaita's use of the word
'real' (sat), since both sublation and consistency are important considerations
in its use. In fact, Advaitins, I maintain, use the word 'real' in a combination
of the third, fourth, and fifth senses suggested above. That is to say, in order
for Advaitins to apply the word 'real' to something, that thing must be (1)
experienceable, (2) nonillusory or nonimaginary, and (3) stable, lasting, or
permanent. Three rather unusual consequences follow from this.
First, the third criterion, as was mentioned previously, seems to confuse
axiology and ontology. At best, it uses the word 'real' in a very special
philosophical sense. Advaita has, I must hastily add, a reason for this use of
the word. It comes from Advaita's basic claim that Brahmajiina-the direct
realization or knowledge of Brahman-is the experience which sublates all
other experiences but is itself unsublatable. I do not intend to question that
claim here, but it may be pointed out that if sublation is a criterion for

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
389

illusoriness, then reality must be unsublatable. And if Brahmajnana is indeed

the experience which sublates all others but which is itself unsublatable,
reality must be stable, lasting, permanent, eternal, and unchanging.
Second, the first criterion rules out, by definition, the existence of theoretical
entities (such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos) in modern physics, since
they cannot be directly perceived. Of course, Advaita could hardly have con-
sidered this a serious flaw in its system at the time of its formulation! This
is a problem for modern Advaitins to solve; I need not consider it further here.
Third, although Advaita will want to say that 'real' in the strict sense of
the term can only be applied to something which meets all three of the above
criteria, Advaita will also be able to use the word 'real' in a less strict sense
and to allow for degrees of reality insofar as some things are experienced
but are illusory and other things are nonillusory but are impermanent. A
statement of the form "this is more real than that" will be perfectly intelligible
in Advaita, however odd it may sound to many contemporary philosophers.
Advaita does, in fact, want to say something of that sort, so I believe that the
above three criteria for the use of the word 'real' bring out some of the funda-
mental aspects of Advaita philosophy in a uniquely clear way.

DEFINITIONS OF CREALs AND 'UNREAL) IN ADVAITA PHILOSOPHY

Let me now turn to the literature of Indian philosophy to support my con-

tention that Advaita's definition of 'real' is "that which is (1) experienceable,
(2) nonillusory or nonimaginary, and (3) stable, lasting, or permanent."
The closest Saikara comes to an actual definition of 'real' (sat) is in his
commentary on the Bhagavad Gitd where he defines veridical perception in
terms of changelessness: "That awareness (buddhi) which does not vary with
its object is 'real' (sat), that which does vary with its object is 'unreal'
(asat)."3 It is tempting on the basis of this passage to say that the term 'real',
by extension, means "unchanging" as far as Safikara is concerned. But his
point here is that the reality-element in the perception does not change,
whereas the content-element does. That is to say, to use his example, in the
succession of judgments "real pot," "real cloth," real elephant," the object
(pot, cloth, elephant) constantly changes, whereas reality does not.4 But this
is merely "word-magic." One could as well use the expressions "blue dress,"
"blue water," and "blue sky" to prove that only blue is invariant, therefore
real, whereas dresses, water, and the sky are not. Even should 8arikara avoid
this by claiming, as I suspect he is trying to, that all judgments implicitly refer

3 Safikara, Bhagavadgitdbhdya 2.16. Cf. his Brahmasutrabhdsya 2. 1. 11, where he states

that correct knowledge (samyagjnana) has a single form (ekaripa), because it is
dependent upon the object rather than upon the volition of the perceiver.
4 Bhagavadgitabh.ya 2. 16.

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
390 Brooks

to reality,5 this amounts to hypostatization of the word 'exists' (asti)-to

which the word 'real' (sat) is related (since they come from the same root,
/as). It amounts to saying that all things "have Being." But that is like
saying that all things "are Are"! It is, of course, true that in Advaita all
judgments do implicitly refer to reality, but that is because all judgments
amount to superimpositions of name and form (namarapa) upon Brahman, the
substratum of the world-illusion. If this is what Safikara is trying to say,
he is putting it rather poorly.
In the post-Safikara literature of Advaita, the word 'real' is usually defined
as "unsublatable throughout the three times (i.e., past, present, and future)"
(trikalabadhyatva) .6 Since it is illusory or imaginary objects that are said to be
sublated, this definition combines the second and third criteria I have listed
above. In the sense that it sums up the most important of the three criteria,
it might be said to be Advaita's "final" definition of 'real'. Furthermore, subla-
tion brings out the fact that there is, between the substratum of an illusion and
the illusion itself, a dependence relation. Professor Karl H. Potter has
observed that the word 'real' is generally accepted by most Indian philosophers
to refer to "the stable end of a dependence relation."7 This is straightforward
enough in the context of illusion. The rope coiled up there in the corner of
the garage is real relative to the snake which we mistakenly perceive it to be;
as such, the rope is perceptually stable while the illusory snake is both per-
ceptually unstable, since upon further examination the snake vanishes, and
also dependent upon the rope for its very existence, since without a non-
snake substratum the snake would not be illusory. In other philosophic
systems, the notion of a dependence relation must mean something else, but
that is not Advaita's concern.

Another common definition of 'real' in Indian philosophy is "possessing

practical efficacy" (arthakriyatva).8 This definition, interestingly, embodies
the first two criteria I have suggested. For a thing to be pragmatically useful,
it must satisfy the demands of practical life. To switch to another common
Advaita analogy, which is of the same basic logical structure as the previous
one, we realize that the post off there in the field is not a man when we shout to
it and it fails to respond. Or, as Professor Potter puts it, using still another

5 Raju (op. cit., p. 35) makes the same claim, quoting in support of it the phrase "sadathle
sarvam abhrantarh prakare tu viparyayah," i.e., "all [things] are nonillusory in [their]
aspect of existence, but with regard to [their] form are mistaken." Raju gives no refer-
ence for this phrase.
6 Cf. Karl H. Potter, Presuppositions of India's Philosophies (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 221. (Hereafter cited as Presuppositions.)
7 Karl H. Potter, "Reality and Dependence in the Indian Darshanas," in Essays in
Philosophy, ed. C. T. K. Chari (Madras: Ganesh & Co., 1962), p. 155. See also his
Presuppositions, pp. 140-141, 162, and 226.
8 Cf. Potter, Presuppositions, p. 141; and a!iakara, Brahmasatrabhasya 2.2.26 and 3.2. 3.

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
391

common and structurally similar analogy, we realize that the shell we picked
up on the beach is not a piece of silver when we "carry it to the market and
try to get a metallurgist to assay its worth."9 But a nonillusory man does
respond to our shout, and nonillusory silver has purchasing power in the mar-
ketplace. Even if the Advaitin wants to claim that, in the final analysis, the
man and the silver (as well as the post and the shell) are illusory along with
the rest of the world, nevertheless he can accord a degree of reality to them
on the basis of their possessing practical efficacy, that is to say, possessing two
of the three criteria of reality.
Another obvious meaning of 'real' in Indian philosophy must be "being the
subject of a valid means of knowledge" (pramana), otherwise there would be
little sense in the elaborate defense of these praminas.l0 This is not the place
to go into a detailed discussion of what Advaita accepts as a valid means of
knowledge, but it may be observed that one such means-indeed, the first and
most fundamental one-is perception (pratyaksa). Insofar as the first cri-
terion of 'real' which I have suggested is experienceability, we might say
that this very minimal criterion is reflected in the definition of real as "being
the subject of a valid means of knowledge," although that definition will have
a wider application also. In this sense, even the illusory "rope-snake," "shell-
silver," etc., will have some degree of reality.
To sum up Advaita's use of the word 'real': in the very minimal sense of the
word, as Ras Vihari Das puts it, "Nothing experienced is absolutely unreal,
hence there must be levels of reality culminating in Brahman as the substratum
of all experienced objects."" In fact, Advaita "is so realistic that it grants some
reality even to illusory objects."12 But, on the other hand, more strictly
speaking, only Brahman is real, since Brahmajiina sublates all other ex-
periences.
Thus, in the strict sense, we may say that reality is (1) independent, in-
sofar as Brahman is the stable end of the only significant dependence relation;
reality is (2) unlimited by anything else, insofar as it is independent of
anything else, therefore related to nothing that could limit it; reality is (3)
nonpartite and (4) unchanging, insofar as it is unlimited and unrelated;
reality is (5) indivisible, insofar as it is nonpartite, and (6) nonacting, in-
sofar as it is unchanging; reality is (7) unitary, insofar as it is indivisible;
and reality is (8) eternal, insofar as it is nonpartite and unchanging. All of
these eight characteristics are predicated by Advaitins of Brahman at one

9 Presuppositions, p. 223.
10 Cf. Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, 5 vols. (Cambridge:
At the University Press, 1957), I, 444.
11 Ras Vihari Das, "The Theory of Ignorance in Advaitism," in R. Das, G. R. Malkani,
and T. R V. Murti, Ajiina (London: Luzac & Co., 1933), p. 82.
12 Ibid., p. 86.

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
392 Brooks

time or another, and all of them can be traced back to Brahman's being the
substratum of the alleged world illusion. This allegation, in turn, is based
upon Brahman's unsublatability. And that is based upon accepting Brahma-
jinna as the experience which sublates all other experiences. It is that claim,
then, which underlies Advaita's definition of the word 'real' (sat).
But, if this is Advaita's meaning of the word 'real' (sat), what can Advaitins
mean by 'unreal' (asat)? anikara seems to use the word 'unreal' in three
different ways, corresponding to the contradictories of each of the three cri-
teria given for the word 'real'. He frequently applies the word 'unreal' to
everything other than Brahman. On other occasions, he will include the
commonly perceived world within the denotation of the word 'real,' reserving
the word 'unreal' for dreams, hallucinations, "rope-snakes," and the like. And
then again, he will sometimes use the word 'unreal' synonymously with 'non-
experienceable', giving as illustrations the examples so common in all Indian
philosophy: "hare's horn," "sky-flower," or "barren woman's son." Frequently,
in this latter context, he will use the phrase "completely unreal" (atyantasat)
to refer to such imaginary entities. Therefore, although Safikara is by no
means consistent in his usage of these terms, what he says implies a fourfold
distinction between the completely real, the practically real, the illusory, and
the completely unreal. More often, however, he seems to make merely a
threefold distinction between the real, the unreal, and the completely unreal.13
Later Advaitins, who tried to point up the peculiar ontological status of
the world more sharply, restricted the meaning of 'unreal' to imaginary objects.
Their usual term for the apparent world was 'false' (mithyd). Occasionally
ganfkara uses this term also.14 Their position on the distinction between 'real'
and 'unreal' is summed up by Madhusudana Sarasvati (sixteenth century)
in his Advaitasiddhi; he states that "unreality is not the contradictory of
reality, whose nature is unsublatability in the three times, but rather is what
never forms the object of cognition as reality in any substratum whatever."'5
Or to phrase it in a slightly different way, 'unreal' means "having no per-
ceived instance at all." In this case, the real (sat) is what is unsublatable in
the three times, the unreal (asat) is what is completely uninstanced, and the
category termed 'false' (mithya) is everything left over, i.e., what is neither
real nor unreal (including both the "practically real" and the illusory).

13 Although this observation about Safikara is based upon my own reading of his works
over several years, I find that A. B. Shastri has made much the same observation in his
Studies in Post-Samtkara Dialectics (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1936), p. 241.
14 Even if the Balabodhini is not a genuine work of aniikara, there are other references
one could cite, e.g., Atmabodha 63.
15 Madhusfdana Sarasvati, Advaitasiddhi, ed. with three commentaries and critical sum-
mary by MM. Anantakrishna Sastri (2d ed. rev.; Bombay: Nirnayasagar Press, 1937),
pp. 50-51: ". . . trikaladhyatvaripasattvavyatireko nSsattvam, kimitu kvacid apy upadhau
sattvena pratlyamdnatvanadhikaratnatvam."

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
393

LEVELS OF REALITY

The one difficulty with Madhusidana's analysis of the world

to identify the clear division between pragmatically useful objects
objects, that is, the division between the substratum and the
ordinary perceptual illusions-the division between the rope an
the shell and the "silver," the post and the "man." To have onl
for this fourfold distinction is confusing. A more precise categori
world into four levels of reality is needed. This is, in fact, to
common fourfold distinction that follows very neatly the div
suggested above in my discussion of the three criteria for the
'real' and the final criterion that I suggested for the definit
These levels of reality are termed "ultimately real" (paramar
matically real" (vyavaharika), "merely illusory" (pratibhdsika
unreal" (tucchika).l6
Actually, this distinction has a fairly long history in Indian p
early as the Mundaka Upanisad-which probably is later th
dranyaka and Chdndogya Upanisads (ca. 900 B.c.), but earl
example, the Prasna and Maitri (ca. 500 B.C.)-a distinctio
between two levels of knowledge, a higher (paravidya) and a
vidyd).17 By Safikara's time, the distinction had become known as
the "ultimate" or "final point of view" (paramarthadarsina) and
or "pragmatic point of view" (lokavyavahdrika) 18 Prior to Saf
Schools of Northern (Mahaydna) Buddhism, Madhyamika and
had reflected this Upanisadic doctrine in a twofold distinction
"ultimate truth" (paramarthasatya) and "practical truth" (
suggesting that the latter was, at best, qualified truth and w
ignorance.19 They then made a further distinction between "pract
the world" (lokasamivrtisatya) and "practical illusions" (mith
the latter being "practical" only in contradistinction to callin
world an illusion. As for things like "hare's horn" or "sky-lotu

16 Cf. Potter, Presuppositions, pp. 166, 223; Dasgupta, History, II,

Studies in Post-Samhkara Dialectics, p. 18.
17 Mundaka Upanisad 1.4-5.
18 Sankara, Mundakopanijadbhasya 1.4. The word 'paramarthadarsina' is
uses here, though he frequently uses merely 'paranmartha' or 'paranm
glosses 'aparavidya' by the word 'dharntadharmasadhanatatphalavisaya,'
is the object of merit, demerit, holiness, and its result," one of sev
pressions he has for what he often refers to as "practical worldly activi
rika). See Works of Shankaracharya, II, part 1, ed. Hari Raghunath B
Poona: Ashtekar & Co., 1927), 500, lines 20-22.
19 Interestingly, this is very similar to what Saikara says in his com
Mutndaka Upanisad passage mentioned above. He states: "The lower
merely ignorance, that which is to be refuted" (apard hi vidya avidya s
Works of Shankaracharya, II, part 1, 500, lines 23-24.

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Levels of reality in Indian thought

Mundaka Post-Sanikara Mahayana Later Advaita's C

Upanisad gafikara Advaitins Buddhists Advaitins Definitions
higher real real ultimate truth ultimate unsublatable p
knowledge (sat) (sat) (pararnrthasatya) reality througho
(paravidyd) (paramarthika) the three
time

unreal false practical worldly pragmatic possess

(asat) (mithyd) truth reality practical ill
(lokasamivrtisatya) (vydvahdrika) ef

lower practical illusion mere illusion being the exper

knowledge (mithydsamvrta) (prdtibhisika) subject of
(aparavidya) perception mir
completely unreal mere stupidity utter unreality never
unreal (asat) (avidydmana) (ticchika) the obje
(atyantasat) cognition instanc
in
substrat
whateve

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
395

them "mere stupidity" (avidyamana).20 Here you have, then, a fourfold

distinction between "ultimate reality," "worldly reality," "worldly illusion,"
and "mere stupidity," closely paralleling the later Advaita distinction, though
differing from it somewhat in terminology. Gaudapada (fifth century), in
his exegesis of the Advaita doctrine, adopts both this fourfold distinction21 and
some of the Buddhist terminology. Safikara often follows Gaudapada's lead-
although altering the terminology-but just as often he uses the terms 'real'
and 'unreal', as we have seen, rather imprecisely, leading to a threefold rather
than a fourfold distinction.
We may now catalogue these distinctions in the manner shown in the
accompanying chart (p. 394).

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE DISTINCTIONS FOR ADVAITA

Occasionally, there has been a movement among a few Adva

minimize these distinctions or even to dispense with them alt
grounds that they are more pragmatic than essential to Advai
at times, to have been Gaudapada's attitude22 and such very ce
attitude of the sixteenth-century Advaitin Prakasananda.23
Indian philosophers like H. M. Bhattacharyya and S. K. Das h
to blur the distinctions between these levels of reality. H. M.
for instance, says:

If we take the distinction between the vyavaharika and the param

in a little wider sense we may very well maintain that the dis
a general hint as to the Relativity of Apprehension. What is
. . .from the stand-point of a particular inquirer with a speci
a particular type of intellectual capacity, proves unreal or non
a higher point of view, where the interest is wider and the power
sion keener and more penetrative. And the same stand-point
paramarthika or higher is itself found to be lower or vydvahd
inquirer of higher intellectual powers. Thus the distinction b
strata is entirely relative and also truth is relative to the inqu
20 One interesting feature of Indian philosophy is that it makes no dist
mere null class (cf. tuccha, empty) and a self-contradiction. Phrases
and "barren woman's son" are used interchangeably as examples of e
no experienced instances. Undoubtedly this is due to the practical t
philosophy; it never remained mere speculation for speculation's sak
happened in Western philosophy. The speculative aspect of an Indian ph
was aimed at convincing the inquirer that that particular system cou
cf. Potter, Presuppositions, pp. 45-52. Under such circumstances, the
in logical refinements, such as the analytic-synthetic distinction.
21 Gaudapada, Mandutkyakdrika 1. 18, 3.28, and 4. 87-88.
22 Cf. Gaudapada, Mandukyakarika 2. 1-10, 3. 10, 3. 30-31, 4.26, 4. 32-5
23 Prakasananda, Siddhantamuktavali, ed. and trans. Arthur Venis, in
11-12 (1889-90; reprinted in Benares, 1898). See also Potter, Presupp
225; and Shastri, Studies in Post-Sathkara Dialectics, p. 11.
24 H. M. Bhattacharyya, Studies in Philosophy (1st ser.), Punjab Orien
(Lahore: Motilal Banarsidass, 1933), p. 6; italics are his.

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
396 Brooks

S. K. Das puts it as follows:

It is better, therefore, to speak of the degrees of adequacy with which Reality

is apprehended, and such apprehensions are endlessly various.... There are,
therefore, only degrees of completeness in our apprehension of objects, and
degrees of correctness in our beliefs about them. Indeed, the assumption of
the reality of Degreees, whether honorary or otherwise, looks more like an
academic prejudice than a matter of universal recognition.2

Both of these philosophers, however, make the completely arbitrary and

dogmatic assumption that this "relativity of apprehension" holds for everyone
else except the Advaitin, who, of course, is in possession of the final truth.
H. M. Bhattacharyya states:

The wider one's outlook-the more analytic one's apprehension-the less and
less real do the objects with their individualities and differences begin to
appear-they seem to dismantle themselves of their cloaks of false realities
one after another as one's capacity of apprehension gains in depth and min-
uteness of analysis, until finally, the absolutely paramarthika or real stage is
reached where there is no further vydvahdrika stratum possibly thinkable,
and in which the absolute reality of Brahman in its indeterminable homoge-
neous eternity is realised.26

Now, you cannot have it both ways. Either you hold a view of relativism,
abandoning any supposed "absolute reality," or else you maintain an "absolute
reality," as Advaita clearly does, and abandon the completely relativistic
position. But together the views are incompatible.
Furthermore, these philosophers overlook a very important point. As
Krishnachandra Bhattacharyya observes: "Were it not for the experience of
pratibhasika or illusory being, the possible unreality of the vyavaharika or
empirically real world-the elimination of its given-ness-would be utterly
unintelligible."27 That is to say, without clear-cut distinctions between the
paramarthika and vyavaharika realms on the one hand and the vyavaharika
and pratibhasika realms on the other, the relation of superimposition
(adhyasa), which is supposed to account for the illusoriness of the world,
would be unintelligible. Furthermore, the alleged illusoriness of the world
would be inexplicable. It is my contention, which I cannot develop here, that
Advaita attempts an explanation of the illusoriness of the world by means
of analogy. Examples such as those of the "snake" being superimposed on the
rope and of water being superimposed on the desert (in a mirage) function,
I maintain, as models to explain how the allegedly illusory world is super-
imposed on Brahman. To deny the doctrine of levels of reality is to eliminate

25 S. K. Das, Towards a Systematic Study of the Vedanta (Calcutta: by the author,

1931), p. 117.
26H. M. Bhattacharyya, Studies in Philosophy, p. 7.
27 K. C. Bhattacharyya, Studies in Philosophy, 2 vols. (Calcutta: Progressive Publishers,
1956), I, 96.

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
397

the possibility of explaining the illusoriness of the world, since the analogy
must have one of its elements (the substratum) in a relatively more real
realm than its other element (the superimposed entity) in order to be analo-
gous to the relation between the completely real Brahman and the illusory
world superimposed upon Brahman.
It might be possible to hold something like a "relativity of apprehension"
doctrine within the pragmatically real realm (insofar as a sddhu has more
insight into the nature of reality than a sophomore), but the lines delimiting
the four main levels of reality must be absolutely sharp or else Advaita's hopes
of explaining the alleged illusoriness of the world are lost. It is for this reason
that Gaudapada uses the word 'sakrdvibhdta' (sudden illumination) to charac-
terize Brahmajnana.28 It is for this reason, too, that Safikara finds no con-
tinuity between the higher and lower truths.29 Professor Potter has character-
ized such a view as "leap philosophy,"30 identifying Suresvara (ninth century)
and Prakasananda (sixteenth century) as the only Advaitins explicitly holding
such a view.31 In point of fact, I believe, all Advaitins must subscribe to a
discontinuity between the vyavaharika and paramdrthika realms, so in that
sense all Advaitins are "leap philosophers."32 But, on the other hand, all
Advaitins-Suresvara and Prakasananda included-agree that there is a path
to moksa, that is, that there are certain more or less well-defined steps which
the aspirant must take, each of which leads him nearer the goal.33 There is
nothing really inconsistent between these two positions; in the final analysis,
all Indian philosophers are going to have to say that one only attains moksa
when one attains mnoksa, and until then one is still bound to the cycle of
births and deaths (saitsara). One may even have to incarnate a number of
times as a holy man (sadhu) before attaining the final insight, Brahmajiinna,
which confers release from the bondage of transmigration.34 But, it must be
evident that Advaitins will say that one has to be a holy man before one can
even be eligible for insight. Thus, the Path is that which takes one out of the
ordinary affairs of the world and up to the point of illumination; it can,
however, go no further-at that point illumination is sudden (sakrdvibhdta)
as far as Advaita is concerned. This follows, indeed, from the fact that

28 Gaudapada, Matndkyakdrika 3.36 and 4.81. Cf. Brhaddranyaka UpaniSad 2. 3. 6

(which uses the word 'sakrdvidyutta') and Safikara's commentary thereon.
29 aiikara, MundakopaniSadbhdSya 1.4. Cf. Shastri, Studies in Post-Samtkara Dialectics,
p. 18; see also p. 11, where he makes the same observation about Vacaspati Misra.
30 Potter, Presuppositions, pp. 94, 99, 110-111, 140, and 236.
31 Ibid., pp. 100, 174, 236, and 242-247.
32 Professor Potter also makes this observation, although he suggests that "some labor
harder to keep it as hidden as possible"; ibid., p. 181.
33 Even Gaudlapada admits that there are steps toward moksa; see his Mandukyakarika
4.81.
34 See Sankara, BhagavadgTtabha;ya 6.42-45.

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
398 Brooks

Brahman is unitary, indivisible. One cannot know pieces of Brahman; either

one has the final knowledge or one does not. Nor does this conflict with the
view that the sadhu is "nearer the goal" than, say, I am; this progress can
easily be defined in terms of ridding oneself of egoism, pride-ahamikara.

CONCLUSION

I have tried, in this paper, to show how some of the funda

Advaita metaphysics are related to Advaita's definition of
have also attempted to show why Advaitins feel constrained to d
way they do. Reality, in Advaita, will be that which is (1)
(2) nonillusory or nonimaginary, and (3) stable, lasting, or
three criteria for reality will, correspondingly, be (1) "being
valid means of knowledge" (pramdna), (2) "possessing pra
(arthakriyatva), and (3) "being unsublatable throughout the
(trikalabhadhyatva). In a loose sense of the term 'real', this
doctrine of levels or degrees of reality, which I have argued is a
doctrine of Advaita metaphysics. In the strict sense of the t
ever, there is only one thing which fulfills all these three crite
Brahman; this is why Advaitins say that reality is nondual
is why Advaitins claim that everything which is pluralistic mus
(mayd). These startling claims rest directly upon Advaita's
the knowledge of Brahman (Brahmajiina) is the experience
all other experiences but which is itself unsublatable-a very
itself!

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.109 on Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:26:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms