Download The Epistemology of the Empiric Reality in Advaita Vedanta

Padma Raman 172-60-6780
MTH/ CLA 199Q
The Epistemology of the Empiric Reality in Advaita Vedanta
Advaita Vedanta is one of the many spiritual traditions which fall under the umbrela of
the Hindu religion. It was developed in eighth century by Adi Sankaracarya, a philosopher-saint
of India who revived Hindu philosophy in the subcontinent. Its principles are rooted in the
Vedas and their explanatory texts. The Vedas are ancient scriptural texts that are accepted as
pramana, revealed transcendental truths which can not be determined by ordinary means of
cognition (sensory perception and logical deduction). The Vedas were revelation to rsis (literally
seers, or sages). Advaita is known as the philosophy of ANon-qualified Non-dualism,@ the
latter word indicating that the fundamental principle is a oneness, and the former word indicating
that this oneness is nirguna, without qualities.
In the Advaita worldview, as in the majority of Hindu philosophical and yogic traditions,
the fundamental principal of existence, or Absolute Being, is Brahman. (Note that there is no
distinction between existence and being.) The Brahman of Advaita is non-qualified so Brahman
transcends not only worldly description, but the idea of decription itself. Since description is
required to communicate ideas, the rsis most often described Brahman in terms of Absolute
potential and infinitude. For example, they described Brahman as sat-cit-ananda, absolute truth,
consciousness or existence, and contentment. Brahman is also described as purnam, complete
fullness lacking nothing; it never looses, gains, or divides. In some esoteric texts rsis deliberately
used contradictory descriptions to emphasize the absolute indescribability of Brahman. All
terms are inadequate in an ordinary sense, but since nirguna, qualitilessness, can not be cognized,
these definitions suffice in allowing us to gain a cursory understanding of Brahman.
Epistemology requires the Absolute Cause of Being to be singular and non-changing. If
the Absolute Cause was a plurality it would be the title of a category in which the elements were
distinct by a more fundamental Cause. An Absolute Cause is also one which affects without
being affected itself, remaining independent of what it creates. Brahman fulfills Advaita=s logical
criterion as the Epistemological Cause of Being since it is singular and non-changing. However,
this does not resolve how Advaita accounts for experiential reality. The world we experience is
ever changing, consisting of a finite plurality of real objects with names and forms (nama and
rupa). Advaita does resolve the paradox between finite reality and infinite Brahman, and the
following discussion summarizes the reasoning.
As the Absolute cause, Brahman is that which affects, yet is not affected. A standard
analogy is that of a lump of gold transforming into a ring: in spite of the transmutation, the
goldness is retained. Likewise, when the ring is melted only the gold remains, indicating that the
fundamental nature is not the appearance of >ring,= but that of gold. Advaita classifies reality
into four categories which are understood as lesser realities superimposed on progressively more
real substrata. They are ultimately grounded in pure existence (i.e. Brahman), this accounting for
their existence. Existence is not altered because of the projection of form, just as the gold is not
affected by the form of a ring. In Advaita logic, all possibilities are potentially true unless
negated - Absolute Reality is that which remains after all else has been negated. The Four Levels
of Reality are as follows:
1.) Insignificant Reality: This is mere imagination and though it is cognized it is known to be a
priori absurd. The classic example is that of a bunny rabbit with horns. It has subjective being
since it arose from the mind, but the buddhi, or intellect, at no point asserts that it belongs to the
objective reality.
2.) Illusion or Apparent Reality: The classic example from the Vedas is mistaking a rope for a
snake. The snake has no objective reality unto itself; it is an idea formulated in the mind,
projected upon an object in the material world, and experienced as though real. The rope snake
evokes the same response as an empirically real snake. By experimentation or observation of the
empiric world, these Illusions can be proven false. Advaita=s explanation for how such things
arise in the mind will be addressed in later paragraphs.
3.) Pragmatic or Empiric Reality: The empiric world (the real world of names and forms) can not
be negated by experiment or action, yet for Advaita it is a false reality. Advaita recognizes this
empiric reality as real, but only from the perspective of this system. From the perspective of
the Absolute, the empiric reality is illusion. The snake projected on the rope has reality for the
buddhi, intellect, so long as the buddhi remains in the system where the snake is thought to be
satyam, truth. Upon transcending the notions of that limited system and gaining insight as to the
empiric status of the snake as a rope, the reality of the snake is contradicted.
4.) Absolute Reality: Brahman, satyam, the truth which transcends the world of names and forms.
Just as absurdities through existing in the mind are known to be not real, the world of experience
is known as ultimately not real from the perspective of Brahman.
The model describes these levels as a series of projections. For example, the idea of a
snake, an Apparent Reality, is projected on a rope, a Pragmatic Reality, which is projected in
Brahman. The goal in studying Advaita is to have real knowledge of the fundamental non-being
of the empiric reality by resolving it with Brahman. It focuses on the disillusion of the jiva (the
seemingly limited, discrete individual) and a knowing of the self as atma (the limitless self,
appearing as though an individual but non-different and non-separate from Brahaman).
From a spiritual standpoint, Advaita is not concerned with conjecturing as to how or why
plurality evolved from Brahman, openly stating that it is impossible to understand this, referring
to manifestation as the product of Maya Sakti, literally, Athe inexplicable power of Brahman,@
>sakti= meaning >power=, and >Maya= connoting mystery and illusion. She is the principle of
activity of Brahman and is completely dependent on Brahman, in the same way that action (in
the sense of a verb) is dependent on an agent of action for its existence. By Brahman, jagat, the
world is and by Maya the world appears as a finite plurality.
Maya Sakti is a clever concept which allows us to conceptualize how it is that the
exceedingly infinite Brahman can be experienced in the finite form of the empirical world without
compromising the infinitude of Brahman. Maya Sakti is not to be thought of as an independent
agent acting on Brahman, Rather Maya Sakti is Brahman, as all realities are Brahman. Maya is
the ultimate illusion, an illusion which can only be known from the perspective of the absolute.
Even the affirmation of existence, AAham,@ or AI am,@ represents the juxtaposition of Maya and
Brahman in the pragmatic reality. The >am= indicates Brahman, but >I= indicates a quality, a
separation. >I= implies a bundle of characteristics at the exclusion of that which is not >I=. This
grammatical subject represents a non-singularity which is the product of Maya. Advaita defines
Maya as possessing the qualities of four-fold negation: Maya is not real, not unreal, not both,
and not neither. Maya=s definition necessitates and makes possible this contradiction to pure
logic.
Maya explains all that can not be directly accounted for by the changeless, fullness of
Brahman. All antakarana, things arising from the world of action (or simply things that are
measurable or qualified) are Maya. Maya is both action and the effect of action, both of which
are illusion. The three non-absolute Levels of Reality are thus Maya. The Empirical Reality, is
attributed to Maya in terms of karma, the law of cause and effect. The underlying logic is that
Maya is false, so that which is a product of Maya is also false. Karma, an endless string of
effects turning into causes, is a product of Maya because of the non-constancy of its elements.
Cause and effect occur ad infinitum, branching and interconnecting at all levels. This intelligible
patterning (though not wholly predictable) is rta, the cosmic order.
The Insignificant Reality (a priori not real) and Apparent Reality (proven untrue
empirically) are not objective realities. Advaita acknowledges them as different from empiric
realities, but still it explains them as antakarana, arising from action, attributing both to
samskaras, latent effects of actions. Continuing the rope-snake example, in order to project
Asnake-ness@ onto a rope the observer must first establish the concept of Asnake.@ This implies
a previous contact with snake-ness in some form, be it real or a description. A previous action
results in the effect of remembering and then >seeing= the snake where there was a rope. Thus,
indirectly the empirically non-real effect is the result of antakarana.
Even without the Four Levels of Reality, the manifest world is accounted for as long as
Maya is accepted as the inexplicable cause of creation. A criticism of this model is that it is
incomplete because it does not explain the existence of Isvara, the personal God. (Isvara is a
qualified entity, therefore different from Brahman). It is impossible to have cognition of an
object without attributes. In order to bring Brahman into the realm of cognition and so that we
can relate to Brahman, a qualified God exists possessing those characteristics deemed >perfect=
by the individual. Despite the limitation of qualification, Isvara transcends the finitude of the
Pragmatic Reality, whereas jiva, the limited individual, becomes lost in Maya.
What is the relationship between Brahman, God, and the individual, and what is the role
of Maya in this model? We have already seen that the individual, as an element of the empiric
reality, can be regressed to Brahman as its cause. But as long as the quasi-Brahman-like God
exists as its own entity, the resolution of the individual and Brahman may seem to be merely a
metaphysical ideality.
Advaita is primarily concerned with Brahma-vidya, which is knowing the true nature of
jiva, the individual, as atma, the limitless self, as well as knowing atma as non-different and nonseparate from Brahman. Nonetheless, several ad hoc models have been proposed to explain how
both jiva and Isvara as products of Maya, but only jiva becomes Alost in Maya,@ and forgets its
true nature.
Jiva and Isvara are commonly described as reflections of Brahman given that a distortion
in the reflection does not effect the object. 1.) Since distortion is greater further from the mirror,
it is as if Isvara is nearer than jiva, and the distortion is less. 2.) In an alternative model Maya
possesses the triguna, the qualities of activity, darkness, and transparency. Jiva (and likewise
the world) is the result of reflection in varying proportions of turbulence and darkness which
cause it to appear skewed. Isvara is the reflection in transparency, thus it remains pure. 3.) To
avoid the illogicality of reflecting that which is formless, the variations are attributed directly to
Maya. Isvara is made manifest in pure Maya which expresses the mystery of the formulation of
the universe, thereby creating a God not ignorant of the answers to this mystery. Jiva, on the
other hand, is made manifest by avidya, a subset of Maya literally meaning >ignorance of
reality.= 4.) In opposition to the prospect of anything directly limiting Brahman, a variation on
the reflection analogy is proposed. Jiva is Brahman reflected in Maya. Isvara is not real. It is
merely a protype of Brahman produced by the buddhi, mind, in consideration of the true
Brahman known by atma, the true self, the limitless self. 5.) Finally, to avoid describing
Brahman as either limited or reflected, both jiva and Isvara are described as due to Maya, the
inexplicable principle, and nothing more.
The models demonstrate how Isvara, God, could appear as qualified (i.e. limited in some
regards), but still remain perfect. As a product of Maya, Isvara is ultimately mithya, false.
From the singularity of Brahman, Advaita logically proposes a means for producing the plurality
of the universe without affecting Brahman. The definition of inexplicability attributed to Maya
is not a loophole, but a virtue of the model. By accepting the inexplicability of phenomena,
Advaita supports its assertion that some force, not completely within our frame of reference is
acting on the system. For Advaita, the world is not separate from Brahman, so despite the
impossibility of knowing the details of Maya and creation, the opportunity still exists to know
Brahman as one=s own essential nature within the empiric reality despite the appearance of
limitation.
Bibliography
Embree, A.T. (ed). The Hindu Tradition. Random House, Inc.: New York. 1966.
Klostermaier, K. A Survey of Hinduism. SUNY Press: Albany. 1994.
Raju, P.T. Structural Depth of Indian Thought. SUNY Press: Albany. 1985.
Sinha, D. The Metaphysics of Experience in Advaita Vedanta. Motilal Banarsidass: Delhi. 1983.