Works of Adi Shankaracharya – Advaita Works of Adi Sankaracharya

Complete Works of Adi Shankaracharya – Advaita Works of Adi Sankaracharya » Gita Bhashya

» Br.Sutra Bhashya – I

» Br.Sutra Bhashya – II

» Vivekachudamani

» Upadesa Sahasri

» Aparokshanubhuti

» Atma Bodha

» Vakya Sudha

» Tattva Bodha

» Vakya Vritti

» Panchikaranam

» Shivananda Lahari

» Soundarya Lahari

» Nirguna Manasa Puja

» Kanakadhara Stotram

» Bhaja Govindam

» Bhavani Ashtakam

» Nirvana Shatkam

» Sadhana Panchakam

» Shiva Manasa Pooja

» Sidhanta Tatva Vindu

Works of Adi Shankara

Adi Shankara, a Hindu philsospher of the Advaita Vedanta school, wrote many works in his life-time of thirty two years; however, many works thought to be of his authorship are debated and questioned as to their authorship today. His works deal with logically establishing the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta as he saw it in the Upanishads. He formulates the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta by validating his arguments on the basis of quotations from the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures. He gives a high priority to svānubhava (personal experience) of the student. Also, a large portion of his works is polemical in nature. He directs his polemics mostly against the Sankhya, Bauddha, Jaina, Vaisheshika and other non-vedantic Hindu philosophies.
Traditionally, his works are classified under Bhāshya (commentary), Prakarana gratha (philosophical treatise) and Stotra (devotional hymn). The commentaries serve to provide a consistent interpretation of the scriptural texts from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta. The philosophical treatises provide various methodologies to the student to understand the doctrine. The devotional hymns are rich in poetry and piety, serving to highlight the helplessness of the devotee and the glory of the deity. A partial list of his works is given below.

Upadesa Sahasri – (Advaita) Prakarana Grantha of Adi Shankara

Upadesa Sahasri (upadEshasAhasri) is a philosophical treatise by sri Adi Shankaracharya , in which he explains ‘a method of teaching the means to liberation for the benefit of those aspirants after liberation who are desirous (of this teaching) and are possessed of faith (in it)’ . Upadesa Sahasri literally means, a thousand teachings, which Adi shankara wrote parly in prose and partly in verses.

==> Read a translation of Upadesha Sahasri

Tenets of Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

Advaita Vedanta (Advaita Vedānta) is a sub-school of the Vedānta (literally, end or the goal of the Vedas, Sanskrit) school of Hindu philosophy, the other major sub-schools being Dvaita and Viśishṭādvaita. Advaita (literally, non-duality) is often called a monistic system of thought. The word “Advaita” essentially refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman). The key source texts for all schools of Vedānta are the Prasthanatrayi— the canonical texts consisting of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras.

Adi Shankara, 788–820 CE, was the first in the tradition of Advaita Vedanta who consolidated the Advaita Vedanta siddhānta (system). He wrote commentaries on the Prasthana Trayi. A famous quote from Vivekacūdāmani, one of his Prakarana granthas (philosophical treatises) that succintly summarises his philosophy is:

Brahma satyam jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah

Brahman is the only truth, the world is unreal, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self.

Dialog between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

The Dialog between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya exploring the nature of Bhrahman as non-dual, all-inclusive and absolute, is an inspiring episode from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

The sage Yajnavalkya had two wives: Maitreyi and Katyayani. Of these, Maitreyi was conversant with the Knowledge of Brahman, while Katyayani had an essentially feminine outlook.

One day Yajnavalkya, when he wished to embrace another mode of life, said: “Maitreyi, my dear, I am going to renounce this life to become a monk. Let me make a final settlement between you and Katyayani.”

Maitreyi said: “Venerable Sir, if indeed the whole earth full of wealth belonged to me, would I be immortal through that or not?” “No,” replied Yajnavalkya, “your life would be just like that of people who have plenty. Of Immortality, however, there is no hope through wealth.” Then Maitreyi said: “What should I do with that which would not make me immortal? Tell me, venerable Sir, of that alone which you know to be the only means of attaining Immortality.”

Yajnavalkya replied: “My dear, you have been my beloved even before and now you have resolved to know what is after my heart. If you wish, my dear, I shall explain it to you. As I explain it, meditate on what I say.”

Read More: Dialog between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Vivekachudamani – An Advaitic Prakarana Grantha of Shankaracharya

The Viveka Chudamani, literally “The Crest-Jewel of Wisdom” is a famous work by Adi Shankara that expounds advaita vedanta philosophy. Having written commentaries to the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras Adi Shankara composed many sub-texts in simple Sanskrit, called Prakarana Granthas, with the objective of reaching the message of the Vedas and Upanishads to laypersons. The Viveka Chudamani, as the name implies, is the crown jewel of such texts.

Read Full Translation of Viveka Chudamani from the following links:

• Translation of Vivekachudamani (The Crest-Jewel of Wisdom) – Part 1
• Translation of Vivekachudamani (The Crest-Jewel of Wisdom) – Part 2
• Translation of Vivekachudamani (The Crest-Jewel of Wisdom) – Part 3
• Translation of Vivekachudamani (The Crest-Jewel of Wisdom) – Part 4
• Translation of Vivekachudamani (The Crest-Jewel of Wisdom) – Part 5
• Translation of Vivekachudamani (The Crest-Jewel of Wisdom) – Part 6

What is the nature of maya?

Is maya real or imaginary?

Let me first attempt to state the questioner’s viewpoint. Unless mAyA is already present, neither concealment nor projection can take place. Is mAyA then coeval with brahman? Do they exist side by side? Does this not contradict the non-dual status of brahman? Where does mAyA operate? What is its base of operation? These questions raise very profound issues.

The base of activity of mAyA cannot be brahman because the latter is Absolute luminosity and there is no place in it for ignorance or darkness. Nor can the jIva be the base of operations of mAyA. For jIva itself cannot come into existence until mAyA has operated. There seems to be an irresolvable logical difficulty here.

But the difficulty will vanish once we realize that we are here making an implicit assumption that is not valid. We are actually assuming the prior reality of time and space before the appearance of mAyA. Otherwise we could not have asked the question: Where does mAyA operate? When does it come into existence? These questions are valid only if you have a frame of reference in time and space independent of mAyA. But time and space, says Shankara, are themselves creations of mAyA. (cf. `mAyA-kalpita-desha-kAla- kalanAt’ in his dakshiNAmUrti-stotra, sloka no.4).

In fact, this is also the answer to the physicist’s question: When did time originate? Time did not originate in a timeless frame because we would then be begging the question. The very fact that we are conscious of the passage of time is a consequence of mAyA. So questions such as, `Where does mAyA operate?’ and `When did it start operating?’ are not properly posed. Time and space cannot claim prior existence. It is therefore wrong to ask whether mAyA is prior to jIva or later than jIva. Ultimate Reality is beyond space and time. In the words of Swami Vivekananda, time, space and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen. In the Absolute itself, there is neither space, nor time nor causation.

As in the field of modern physics, so in the field of vedanta, time and space are modes incidental to sense perception and should not be applied to what is trans-empirical. jIva and mAyA are both given a priori in our experience and we have to take them as such. They are anAdi (beginningless). The only relevant question that you can ask about them is about their nature and final destiny. Examination will show that mAyA is neither real nor unreal.

`I am ignorant’ is a common expression, within anybody’s experience. Hence mAyA is not completely unreal. But it disappears with the onset of knowledge. So it is not real either. Thus it is different from both the real and the unreal. In Sanskrit it is therefore called `sad-asad- vilakshaNa’, meaning that it is different from both the real and the unreal. And for the same reason it is said to be `anirvachanIya’, meaning, that which is undecidable or that which cannot be defined one way or the other. It is in this sense we say that the world of perception, the common world of experience, cannot be rejected out of hand as totally false, like the hare’s horn or the lotus in the sky; nor can it be taken to be totally real because it suffers contradiction at a higher level of experience. It is real in the empirical sense and unreal in the absolute sense.

This is also the case with a dream. For the dreamer, the dream is real. The acceptance of the reality of the dream to the dreamer is the king-pin of Shankara’s explanation of Advaita. He bases many of his arguments on this phenomenal reality of the dream. This reality, called `vyAvahArika-satyaM’ is in between the total unreality – `asat’ – of the barren mother, and the total reality – `sat’ – of brahman. The dream and similarly the perceptible universe is neither `sat’ nor `asat’. It is `mithyA’. The meaning of the word `mithyA’ is not falsehood but comparative unreality. It is not total non-existence like hare’s horn but it is midway between the absolute truth of brahman and the absolute falsehood of hare’s horn.

There are actually different analogies to explain the peculiar relationship between brahman and the universe. The analogy that Shankara very often uses is the relationless relationship of the rope that is mistaken for the snake, because of poor lighting. The rope appears as a snake no doubt, but actually there is no snake there, ever. Even when it appeared to be there, it was not there. But the one who saw it did really get scared on `seeing’ the snake and only when help came in the form of better lighting did the person realize that what `was there’ all the time was only a rope.

The second analogy that is used in the literature is the appearance of water in a mirage. And the third one is that of the dreamer and his dream. Each of these three analogies has its own limitation in explaining the relationship between brahman, which is invisible, and the universe, which is visible. Brahman is the rope; the visible universe is the snake. What appears as the universe is not really the universe. When spiritual illumination takes place we will know that what was there all the time was only brahman. Similarly in the example of the mirage and water, the water appearance is only an illusion. What is there in reality is only sand, no water. The dream of course is totally a mental aberration, fully subjective and it vanishes the moment the person wakes up.

The three analogies are not however just three analogies in place of one. There is a gradation, says Ramana Maharshi. First it may be questioned, with reference to the analogy of the rope and the snake that when the lighting situation improves the appearance of the snake is no more there, whereas, in the case of brahman versus universe, even after learning that brahman is the substratum of truth, and the universe is only a superimposition like the snake on the rope, we still continue to see the universe; it has not disappeared!

For this the Maharishi wants you to go to the analogy of the mirage. Once you understand it is the mirage and no watershed, the appearance of water is no more there. But now there is another objection: ‘Even after knowing that there is only brahman and the universe is only an appearance, one gets certain wants fulfilled from this appearance of a universe: one gets one’s hunger satisfied, thirst quenched and so on. But the water in the mirage does not quench one’s thirst; so to that extent the analogy is inappropriate’.

The analogy of the dream meets this objection, says the Maharishi. The dreamer has his thirst quenched in the dream. The thirst itself is a dream thirst and it is quenched by drinking (dream) water in the dream; so also the wants that one feels in this universe like hunger and thirst are also quenched by corresponding objects in this universe. Thus in this sense the analogy of the dream is reasonably perfect. Maybe that is why Shankara uses the analogy of the dream so emphatically to describe the reality or unreality of the universe.

In Advaita the concept of reality is always comparative. Relative to materials, things made out of the materials are unreal. In other words if a bucket is made out of plastic, the bucket is unreal relative to the plastic. It is the cause that is `more real’ than the effect. The cause of the world versus the world itself gives us a comparison about their relative reality. When we say that the universe is unreal, we mean that it is unreal as the universe, but it is surely real as brahman, its cause.

In order to explain this relative unreality the theory of superimposition is meticulously worked out by Shankara. While the snake is superimposed on the rope, the rope undergoes no aberration or modification in the process. It is the same rope all the time. What appears to you is only in your mind. The visible universe is just a perishable (kShara) superimposition on brahman. Brahman does not undergo any change in the process. All the time brahman remains as brahman, the imperishable (akShara) substratum. This is where the nirguNa (attributeless) character of brahman is effectively applied by Shankara to his explanation of this mysterious relationship.

This phenomenon of brahman not being visible but something else, the universe, being visible, is exactly what the term `mAyA’ means. It does two things. It hides brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the universe to you.

The declaration that this is what is happening comes forth from the Lord Himself in Gita IX – 5, 6. ‘Everything that is perceptible is pervaded and permeated by Me, who is unmanifested. All the beings are established in Me but not I in them; they are not in Me either, this is my divine yoga.’. He remains unmanifested while what is visible is basically a permeation by him. While he remains unchanged, and imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible. Everything visible is supported by Him as the only substratum, whereas He Himself is not supported by anything. He is His own support.

The snake appears on the rope, the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: Where is the snake?, the answer is: it is in the rope. To the question, Is the snake there?, the answer is, there is no snake, the snake was never in the rope. It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements. Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me. This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not – sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA!

More Resources: Shankaracharya’s Advaita Vedanta

Does Advaita believe in reincarnation? (part 2)

Q: But if reincarnation is not real at the ultimate level, what happens to dharma and ethics?

All dharma and adharma operate at the transaction level only. They are as real as jiiva and Isvara. Everything is included in that One – which is real from the absolute point.

When we say ‘I am’, ‘I’ stands for the consciousness aspect and ‘am’ stands for the existence aspect. When we say ‘I am this’, there is the confusion of identification of the subject ‘I am’ with the object ‘this’. That is due to error ,which is due to the ignorance of not knowing that ‘I am’. Right now ‘I am a jiiva’ is the notional understanding while ‘I am Brahman’ is the vision of my self according to the Upanishads. That true ‘I am’ has to realized or recognized.

The body is only a vehicle or instrument required to exhaust my vAsana-s. Essentially, vAsana-s decide the type of body required – man or woman, white, brown or black skin etc. I, the jiiva, gravitate towards the environment that is conducive to my vAsana-s. Hence they are called ‘kAraNa shariira’ or causal body.

Hence what birth I take next depends on the most powerful vasana-s that are ready to germinate next. There is my ‘total bank account’ of karma (saMchita karma), of which I brought into this life only those that can be exhausted (prArabdha karma) and, if in the process I make new ones (AgAmin karma), which cannot be exhausted in this life, these are deposited to my account. Until all vasanas get neutralized, I will continue taking births in one form or the other. By yoga or sAdhanA, I neutralize the vAsanas. When I realize who I am – I am ‘not this, not this’ etc. (since I am the subject that can never be an object ‘this’) – I recognize that I am that sat chit ananda and then there is no more ownership of any karma. All are transcended in that knowledge of who I am.

As long as I think I am a jiiva, these notions are regarded as facts and Brahman does not come into picture – ‘I am Brahman’ is only realised from the state of absolute knowledge. Until this is recognized as a fact and not merely as a thought, jiiva-hood is there and vAsana-s operate. So karma and its kShaya (dominion) are there as long as you are there to question, since the questioning is done by a jiva.

As long as I am dreaming that I am being chased by a tiger, that dream tiger is as real as the one who is being chased. I have to run away as fast as I can to save myself from that tiger. Only when I am awakened to the higher state of consciousness, are the tiger and the one whom the tiger is chasing, as well as the forest and the ground upon which I am running, all resolved into my own mind.

The dreamer thinks that the dream world is real until he is awakened to a higher state where there is only one mind that projects the world of plurality. The plurality is real as long as dream lasts. The problem in your questions is that you want to place one leg in the waking state and one leg in the dream state and then question the validity of each from the other reference point. Any question from the Brahman viewpoint whilst still sitting at the jiiva position is like a dreamer asking about the waking mind. The waking mind is one – Advaita. The plurality of the dream world is from the viewpoint of a dreamer who thinks he is different from the tiger and the trees in the forest.

Source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/reincarnation_sada.htm

More Info: Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta (expounded by Sankaracharya)

Advaita Articles: Oneness in spite of Duality

An Article posted to Advaitin EList By Madathil Nair:
Knowledge, inferential or direct, is necessarily dualistic. There is a knower and there is a known. It is the apparent chasm between the two that necessitates ‘add ins’ like body, mind, intellect etc., which are absolutely necessary if we get down to analyzing the process of knowing and of which, however, we are not at all aware through most of our waking moments. The question now is if we can get rid of, or at least limit, the sense of duality while keeping our eyes open and experiencing the world. The sense of duality emerges only when ‘we get down to analyzing’. Otherwise, it is all One. This is the exact reason why empirical sciences unfailingly fail at appreciating Reality because they stick their nose deep into ‘enquiring’. Well, that is their job. Can’t help it.
This reminds me of a story of a king and his consort which I read in some old philosophical work. The lady was a realized being and the king was a spiritual struggler. She taught him Vedanta and, as a result, he reached a stage of spiritual evolution where he was able to enjoy samaadhi at will – but only when he sat in a particular posture and kept his eyes closed! His consort was not happy with the situation. She continued helping him until at last he opened up like Arjuna saying “naShTo moha”! He no more needed a posture or closed eyes to be One with everything. He ‘knew’ that he had always been just That!
As advaitins, we know duality and we know that there is only Oneness despite duality. In acquiring this knowledge, no doubt, we necessarily made use of concepts like adhyaasa, body, mind, intellect etc. But, isn’t it yet time we kept these tools and equipment on the shelf, opened our eyes, looked upwards at the Sun and chanted the gAyatrI mantra or showed the lighted lamp to our smiling devI (She is my iShTadevata) and said “na tatra sUryo bhaati ……….” or looked at the splendour of the night sky and thrilled heaven and earth by singing from dakshinAmUrti stotram: “Naanachchiddra ghatodarasthithamaha deepaprabhabhaasuram…..”?
Will you feel any sense of duality then? I am sure no. You then have no time to entertain duality. This guy called duality is there in your sitting room only as long as you care to entertain him.
The whole of waking life or most of it can thus be rendered ‘non-dual’. We don’t have to necessarily turn ‘inwards’ to do that. There is no ‘inwards’ or ‘outwards’ in this business. All directions are the same. An ‘inwards’ can exist only in relation to the limitations of the body-mind-intellect equipment. Haven’t we already placed it on the shelf? Neither have we got to negate anything. We can be just That inspite of everything. In other words, we accept everything and see them from a different angle, wherefrom only the oneness in diversity is perceived. This is my ‘I know’ – the common denominator of all transactions.
I am reminded of two situations Swami Dayananda Saraswatiji mentions in this context. You are alone and there is a beautiful sunset. That makes you extremely happy. There is no wish fulfilment here. Yet, you are happy, because you are essentially happiness and the sunset made you forget your limitations for a second. In other words, you tasted oneness. The second situation (slightly embellished by me): You are with your business rival in his sitting room struggling to sort differences out. You hate the man because he is a big pain on the neck. And suddenly you spot his baby. It is smiling at you – a toothless, innocent smile. You forget everything for a moment and break out into being a tender expansiveness in spite of the fact that that baby is not yours and its father is your bitter foe.
These are classical examples where duality vanishes without a trace. There is no body-mind-intellect equipment here unless you sit back later and analyze. You are then inviting the guy – the unwanted duality – back into your sitting room.
It is within us to make each and every moment of our life ‘non- dually’ happy if we really contemplate and endeavour. The ‘I know’ (or jaanaami) explanation helps. One can even reach a point where one is able to spot, appreciate and love the endearing ‘cherubicity’ (my coinage) behind the bushy moustache of Saddam Hussein without any sense of separation. (I was a war prisoner in his Iraq some time ago. I, therefore, have every reason to love him, for the hardships I then underwent taught me great lessons.). There are masters around us living this truth. Why can’t we at least aspire to be in their footsteps?
With advaitic contemplation, we begin to spontaneously glow like glow-worms. It is the waking, continuous glow of knowing (jaanaami) without a sense of separation. Deep sleep, experiences (!) of anaesthesia and hypnosis are within that glow. The concept of non-existent death too. Who cares? I have got to glow. I don’t have time to see what happens to this body-mind-intellect equipment. It is there on the shelf. I can take a look at it when I want. It does not matter if it was the same one which I left there last time!
More: Advaita Vedanta Resources

Advaita Articles: Creation Theories in Advaita

The following was posted to the Advaitin Egroup in June 2003:
Advaita does NOT teach a single theory but rather several theories, depending on the student’s level of insight and spiritual progress. At the lower (vyAvahArika) level are the more dualistic sRRiShTi-dRRiShTi-vAda (what has been created is perceived) and dRRiShTi-sRRiShTi-vAda (perception is simultaneous with creation). The higher (pAramArthika) level teaches ajAti vAda (creation is not an absolute and real event). Shankara drew on all these views, whereas later Advaitins tended to emphasize one or the other. (Therefore it is misleading to over-emphasize a few selected quotations from Shankara. Like Ramana and the Upanishads, he sometimes seems to ‘contradict’ himself, because he addresses a wide variety of students.)
Basically, sRRiShTi-dRRiShTi-vAda is for beginning students, who naturally see the world as distinct from themselves, since this is the normal human reaction. This illusory view is intimately connected with the equally illusory view of oneself as an individual jIva (soul): they are two sides of the same coin. This jIva is the ‘I am’ of small-self affirmation, not the pure ‘I’ of Self affirmation. If we divide ourselves from the ‘world’ by drawing a conceptual boundary around what we are pleased to call our (small) self, then that same boundary ’causes’ a distinct and seemingly real world to spring into being. (‘Real’ here means that the world appears as a distinct ‘existing’ entity, as do we.) Such a world needs a ‘creator’, and this is supplied by Brahman in its lower illusory conceptual representation as ISwara. This is also the view of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other philosophically-challenged religions. (Ooops! There I go being prejudiced again!) Finally, there is not just one jIva but a multiplicity of them (as in the JCI religions).
From a purely logical point of view, this accordance of a measure of independent reality to mAyA (i.e. the ‘world’) clearly contradicts the mighty mahAvAkya which says Brahman is One without a second, which is the very essence of advaita. Nevertheless, in this lower ‘dualistic’ teaching, there is still a subtle distinction with the truly dualistic sAMkhya philosophy. It is understood that mAyA does not have an ultimate existence distinct from brahman. In sAMkhya the closely related concept of prakRRiti does indeed have an absolute existence of its own. The lower teaching of Advaita understands that mAyA is reabsorbed into brahman as illusion is dispelled.
The other ‘dualistic’ view is dRRiShTi-sRRiShTi-vAda (perception is simultaneous with creation). This view says that the various jIvas ‘create’ the world in the act of cognition. The webpage author finds similarities to subjective idealism and the Buddhist vij~nAnavAda. Whether this is true depends on just what is meant by ‘create’ here. In my view, subjective idealism and vij~nAnavAda do NOT create a distinct world but rather absorb the seemingly distinct world into perception, which is in turn an aspect of consciousness. Then one must ask if there is some subtle distinction between perception and the consciousness which is conscious of the perception. I believe that ultimately there is not, but there is a long tradition in Advaita which distinguishes between the Consciousness and the mind (including perceptions). Again, I believe that this distinction is only at the vyAvahArika level. Indeed, all distinctions of any kind must be at the vyAvahArika level, since at the pAramArthika level brahman is One without a second. QED.
Anyhow, let us move on to the last and highest (i.e. non-dual) advaitin view. This is ajAti-vAda (creation is not an absolute, real event), or, stated differently, creation never occurred. THIS is what I call subjective idealism and vij~nAnavAda. This is the view that mAyA (i.e. the apparent world) has no reality in itself, as brahman is the only reality (One without a second). (Advaitin math is very simple!) The seeming reality of the ‘external’ world is only an illusion projected or superposed (adhyAsa) by the mind upon the sole reality of Consciousness, like the snake on the rope, and this is called mAyA. This disappearance of mAyA naturally occurs as the jIva is understood to be an equally illusory creation of the mind. Conversely, ajAti-vAda is incomprehensible as long as one clings to any notion of oneself as a discrete self-existing entity (i.e. jIva). As mentioned above, these are two sides of the same coin.
The ajAti-vAda was taught by gauDapAda, Shankara’s paramaguru, who may perhaps be considered the ‘purest’ advaitin since he was so unequivocally non-dual. (I imagine gauDapAda as being a true forest dweller.) Shankara dealt with a much vaster audience and had to teach a variety of views in order to accommodate the levels of the different students. An infant cannot learn to run until it first learns to walk. We embark on the spiritual path with a firm belief in the reality of what is revealed by our senses.
The article states that ajAti-vAda is also the realization that the true brahman is nirguNa, i.e. without attributes. When brahman is thus understood, mAyA dissolves, which establishes an interesting correspondence between the apparent reality of the world and the view of God with attributes. As brahman is realized in its essential nature as nirguNa, the world simultaneously ‘disappears’. (By the way, the notions of nirguNa brahman and the disappearance of the world bear a striking resemblance to the ’emptiness’ of mahAyAna Buddhism, but I won’t belabor that point here.) I would only caution that the ‘disappearance’ of the world is not like a television screen going black when switched off. Rather, it means that there is no longer the dualism of perceiver and perceived, of jIva and jagat (world). It is in this sense that one says that this state is adRRiShTam (unseeable), agrAhyam (ungraspable), alakShaNam (without any attributes), acintyam (unthinkable), avyapadeshyam (cannot be indicated as an object), advaitam (nondual), and so forth.
Although this state is realized in its purest form in the ‘fourth’ stare of turIya [the other three states being jAgrat or waking state, svapna or dream state, and suShupti or deep sleep state], we must not forget that turIya encompasses these other three states and is in fact the essence of consciousness, the substratum itself. That is why the realized man can operate in the world as jIvanmukti. The turIya or realized state is one of complete peace and bliss, as all disturbance and suffering arise with the activity of the mind, as does the illusion of the world.
As the bRRihadAraNyaka says (Part 2 Chapter 4):
“For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should One know That owing to which all this is known – through what, my dear, should one know the Knower?”
At this highest level the reality of the world is indeed denied, in the sense explained above. In my opinion, this is close to if not identical to subjective idealism and I could quote countless unambiguous passages from Shankara, Ramana and Nisargadatta in support of this view. Those who suggest that a few passages of Shankara seem to postulate a ‘real’ world simply do not understand that different views of ‘creation’ are taught in Advaita, depending of the level of the student.

Author: Benjamin
More: Advaita Vedanta Resources and Texts