[Advaita-l] Shankara compares and contrasts Prātibhāsika, Vyāhārika and Pāramārthika

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Prasthāna traya Bhāshya we find Shankara with great accuracy making
a compare-contrast of the three types of reality.  A sample of this is
presented below.

In the Taittiriyopanishad bhAShyam, while commenting on the Satyam
'attribute' of Brahman:

 // *यद्रूपेण** यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत् सत्यम् ।*
यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं
तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम्, ’वाचारंभणं विकारो
नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’, एवं सदेव सत्यम् इत्यवधारणात् ।


//*As for satyam, a thing is said to be satyam, Real, when it does not
change the nature that is ascertained to be its own; *and a thing is said
to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its
own.  Hence a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, ‘All transformation
has speech as its basis, and it is name only.  Clay as such is the
reality.’ (Chandogya Up. 6.1.4), it has been emphasized that, that alone is
true that Exists (Ch.Up. 6.2.1)  //


Shankara states what is Absolutely real, Pāramārthika, and contrasts it
with the vyāvaharika/prātibhasika.


In the Chandogya Upanishad, while delineating the clay-pot analogy,
Shankara mentions the rope-snake analogy. Both for the Upanishad and
Shankara, the creation by Brahman with sankalpa, etc. is no more than the
creation of the snake in the rope substratum by the individual.


In the very Adhyāsa bhashya Shankara, after stating the Atma-Anātma
adhyāsa, gives the shell-silver analogy to demonstrate it:


आह — कोऽयमध्यासो नामेति । उच्यते — स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः । तं
केचित् अन्यत्रान्यधर्माध्यास इति वदन्ति । केचित्तु यत्र यदध्यासः
तद्विवेकाग्रहनिबन्धनो भ्रम इति । अन्ये तु यत्र यदध्यासः तस्यैव
विपरीतधर्मत्वकल्पनामाचक्षते । सर्वथापि तु अन्यस्यान्यधर्मावभासतां न
व्यभिचरति । तथा च लोकेऽनुभवः — शुक्तिका हि रजतवदवभासते, एकश्चन्द्रः
सद्वितीयवदिति ॥


Translation by Swami Gambhirananda:

If it be asked, “What is it that is called superimposition?"— the answer
is: It is an awareness, similar in nature to memory, that arises on a
different (foreign) basis as a result of some past experience. With regard
to this, some say that it consists in the superimposition of the attributes
of one thing on another. But others assert that wherever a superimposition
on anything occurs, there is in evidence only a confusion arising from the
absence of discrimination between them. Others say that the superimposition
of anything on any other substratum consists in fancying some opposite
attributes on that very basis. From every point of view, however, there is
no difference as regards the appearance of one thing as something else. *And
in accord with this, we find in common experience that the nacre appears as
silver, and a single moon appears as two.*


*In the above, Shankara equates the vyavaharika life experience to the
pratibhasika shell-silver illusion. Shankara draws the similarity: *अध्यासो
नाम अतस्मिंस्तद्बुद्धिरित्यवोचाम ।  Adhyāsa is perceiving one as the other.
And goes on to demonstrate how one takes the ups and downs of one's kith
and kin as one's own and suffers the consequences.


A feature that is outstanding in Shankara's Bhashya-s is: He gives
prātibhāsika analogies to impress upon the unreality of the vyāvahārika.
So, that way he makes a comparison of the two, thereby making them
identical. Yet, he also brings out the fundamental difference between the
two too, as for example:


 In BSB 3.2.4, the section that discusses dream, Shankara makes a
phenomenal statement:

पारमार्थिकस्तु नायं सन्ध्याश्रयः सर्गः वियदादिसर्गवत् —
इत्येतावत्प्रतिपाद्यते । न च वियदादिसर्गस्याप्यात्यन्तिकं सत्यत्वमस्ति ।
प्रतिपादितं हि ‘तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः’ (ब्र. सू. २ । १ । १४)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/BS/devanagari?page=2&id=BS_C02_S01_V14&hl=%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83>
 इत्यत्र समस्तस्य प्रपञ्चस्य मायामात्रत्वम् । प्राक् तु
ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शनात् वियदादिप्रपञ्चो व्यवस्थितरूपो भवति । सन्ध्याश्रयस्तु
प्रपञ्चः प्रतिदिनं बाध्यते — इत्यतो वैशेषिकमिदं सन्ध्यस्य
मायामात्रत्वमुदितम् ॥ ४ ॥


Translation:


But what we want to show is only this much that in truth, this creation in
dream is not of the *same order of reality *as the creation of the world
with the elements ether, etc.. *And yet the creation of space etc.
also has* *no
absolute reality*; for under the aphorism, "The effect is non-different
from the cause since terms like 'origin' etc. are met with" (II. i. 14), *we
showed that the whole creation is but Maya*. But before the realization of
the identity of the Self with Brahman,* creation counting from space etc.,
continues just as it is, whereas the creation within dream is abrogated
every day.* Hence the statement that dream is merely Maya has a special
significance.


Noteworthy features:  Contrary to the misunderstanding of scholars such as
Alston, Shankara does dwell on the* 'orders or reality.' *In the above
sample bhashya, Shankara compares the dream world reality with the waking
world reality. He says that the former is 'abrogated every day' while the
latter is abrogated upon the Brahman realization. Naturally, the former is
of a lower order than the latter and Brahman is of the highest order.


Thus the rule that we see in the PSA - the prātibhāsika' rope-snake, dream
type illusions, do not require Brahman realization for their annulment
while the 'vyavahārika' illusion does require Brahma-knowledge - has
extremely strong basis in the Shankara Bhashya.


In conclusion of the study of the above sample instances we say that *none
can prove that the PSA (Post-Shankara Advaitins) have said anything that is
not explicitly said or implied by Shankara/Gaudapada/Sureshwaracharya*.
Everything that the PSA have said has a grounding in the Prasthana Traya
Bhashya. Even the apparently contradicting Bhāmati-Vivarana concepts have
their moorings in the Shankara bhashya. It's only those who have not
recognized this that have deviated from Shankara.


We can find many such instances where Shankara asserts the 'degrees of
reality'. We don't require Chat GPT to tell us that 'it's only pedagogical
and not absolute' since it is well known that it's the given.  Shankara
himself has said the ultimate: The very Veda, the Supreme Pedagogue, the
means to the higher quality enjoyments and even liberation, is operating in
the realm of avidya. Gaudapada too has said this.


warm regards

subbu