So far in our study of Shankara's Advaitic experience of Self-realization (Brahmaanubhava), we have looked into its nature, the condition for its attainment and the path to its attainment. In doing so we have also analyzed his Non-Dualistic approach to the understanding of reality and human destiny. Now, we need to raise the question whether the philosophical approach of Shankara is able give a true explanation of reality and that of authentic human destiny? In other words, there arises the question whether the Non-Dualism (Advaita) of Shankara, as a system of thought and practice, is sufficient to answer various issues that baffle man and his existence? Many critics have questioned the validity of the Advaitic system of Shankara. Some have attempted to propound interpretations and critiques in terms of non-Indian traditions and hence less apt to express adequately the Advaitc Mysticism of Shankara. In our critique, we attempt at a negative and positive appraisal of the system of Shankara. In doing so we would also take up the critical consideration of some of the issues that have emerged in our unfolding of the path of Shankara, even though these topics refer to his philosophy as a whole.

Our aim here is to consider those issues in Shankara's thought that lacks clarity and need further elaboration. Some of such questions that call our attention are the Dualism inherent in Shankara's Non-Dualism, the incommunicability of the identity-experience of Brahmaanubhava, the role of the other in one's authentic destiny, the practicability of the Jnaana path and the bodily nature of man. In the following pages we could briefly consider each of these topics.

Though Shankara's philosophy is non-dualistic (Advaitic), there permeates a Dualism in Shankara's conception of knowledge. Shankara envisages two levels of reality, viz., the phenomenal and the transcendental. Therefore, he has to hold for a dualistic theory of knowledge. The knowledge of the phenomenal reality is characterized by subject-object duality. Therefore, in the level of knowledge there is always the distinction between the experiencer and the experienced, the knower and the known, the seer and the seen, the subject and the object, the ego and the non-ego. The seer is the perceiver who is identical with the subject of experience in question, and is of the nature of consciousness and intelligence. The seen is the thing perceived and is identical with the object and is sentient by nature. Thus, the perceiver and the perceived are mutually opposed and never can be identified with each other. All the means of empirical knowledge, viz., the perception, inference, comparison, supposition, non-perception and scriptural testimony presuppose the subject-object distinction and operate in the realm of phenomenal reality. According to Vedaanta school of thought, all these pramaanas are valid means of knowledge, as they give knowledge of the phenomenal world. But, we cannot hold them absolute, because their scope is limited to the empirical order. When considered in relation to Paraa Vidhyaa, their reality and the truth they give cease to exist. As a result, we cannot use them in the transcendental order. This does not mean that pramaanas are useless. They are useful, valid and necessary as long as we are under the sway of the empirical consciousness of jiiva. The transcendental state is characterized by a knowledge that is non-dual and unitive. It is based on the identity-experience of the seeker that his inner self, Aatman, is identical with Brahman. Such knowledge is eternal and not bound by time. In it, there is no distinction between the seer and the seen, as they both are one and the same. Everything is experienced from the perspective of the primordial experience of Brahman.

From what we have said it is clear that there is an essential and fundamental difference between the phenomenal and transcendental knowledge. Both are diametrically opposed to each other. One who is in the empirical existence does not posses the transcendental knowledge, and to the Jiivanmukta, who has attained the transcendental state of existence, the empirical knowledge becomes unreal. Such an epistemological position amounts to a Dualism, as it pre-supposes two unrelated levels of knowledge. In a dualistic epistemological stand, the objectivity of knowledge would be lacking, as each type of knowledge  the phenomenal and the transcendental  would be true only from their respective points of view. Besides, there is the difficulty of genuine communication between persons who belong to the phenomenal and the transcendental levels of existence, as the phenomenal knowledge is unreal to the self-realized person and the transcendental knowledge is inaccessible to the one, who is in the phenomenal level. Thus, Shankara's dualistic epistemological theory does not account for objectivity of knowledge and genuine objective communication

The self-realization involves an identity-experience, wherein one realizes his oneness with the ultimate Brahman. Therefore, self-realization is of the nature of Brahman, i.e., without subject-object duality, eternal and uncaused, immediate and direct, besides being incomprehensible, indescribable and trans-empirical. Brahmaanubhava is not available to the empirical experience, as the scope of the former goes far beyond that of the latter. The words and languages we use refer to the phenomenal world and relative realities. As Brahman is beyond the phenomenal, Brhamaamubhava cannot be described in ordinary language. Therefore, one can speak of self-realization only by way of negation, by denying the qualities of the empirical experience superimposed on it. For instance, the qualities that are attributed to Brahman, such as reality (satyam), knowledge (jnaanam) and infinitude (aanandam) are not positive descriptions of Brahman, but are mere negations of qualities superimposed on Brahman, such as unreality, ignorance and finitude. Thus, all statements we make about Brahman, Brahmaamubhava and Brahmajnaani are mere approximations in the light of the phenomenal knowledge. Such a philosophical position makes self-realization, for all practical purposes, incommunicable. Since, Brahmaanbhava is unknowable and indescribable, it cannot be communicated by the Brahmajnaani to any one in the realm of phenomenal existence. Since Brahman-experience cannot be passed on to the other in any form of communication, it would always remain the subjective experience of the Brahmajnaani. Any attempt to communicate it, using phenomenal language, would be nothing else but a mere phenomenal approximation of the transcendental experience. Such approximations would never take one to the core of self-realization, as it is incommunicable.

Shankarite path to self-realization, viz., the movement from ignorance to knowledge, is a way that is basically walked by the aspirant alone. The only involvement of the other, on the aspirant's effort to attain the goal of Brahmaanubhava, is the Guru. He is a detached guide, who helps the student to understand the true import of the Vedaantic statements, especially at the hearing (sravana) state of Brahmaajijnaasa. The relationship that exists between the aspirant and the Guru is that of a teacher and a student. In this relationship, the aspirant is totally obedient to the Guru, does personal service to him, looks after the daily chores in the ashram and listens to the teachings of the Guru by sitting at his feet. It is not a one to one, I  Thou relationship, in which one enters into the life of the other as an equal partner. Other than the teacher, the aspirant does not have any significant relationship with any other person. This is clear from what the aspirant does in the three stages of Brahmaajijnaasa, viz., sravana, manaana and nididhyaasana. In these three stages of Brahmaajijnaasa the aspirant firstly, hears the instructions of the teacher personally. Secondly he reflects on the content of the Guru's teachings in solitude, so as to remove the apparent contradictions and to be intellectually convinced of the true import of the scriptural aphorisms. Thirdly, he meditates in silence on the truths he achieved through hearing and reflection. The various stages of Brahmaajijnaasa in the jnaana path are so centered on the individual seeker and his personal effort the presence of the other in the process is seen as an interference that would distract him from the goal of self-realization. So the seeker is basically all alone through out the process of Brahmaajijnaasa. Even after the seeker has attained self-realization, he does not need to have any relationship with the other or to a community of others, because all such relationships would be irrelevant and unreal to the Brahmajnaani. Thus, Shankara's path to self-realization does not give any significance to the I  Thou relationship that is genuine and inter-subjective communion of hearts between human persons.

The jnaana path to self-realization involves a deep understanding of the illusoriness of phenomenal reality, the fundamental oneness of everything in Brahman and discriminative consciousness that would enable the seeker to break through the appearance and apprehend the underlying absolute reality. To attain this goal, the seeker must go through a rigorous path of physical, moral and intellectual preparations. The physical preparation involves the practice of Hathayoga, with its twofold limps: aasana and pranayaama. The moral preparation calls the seeker to practice the fourfold ethical disciplines called instruments of spiritual knowledge, acquire the four spiritual qualities, viz., the discrimination between the eternal and the non-eternal, renunciation, the practice of six virtues  calmness, self-control, self-settledness, forbearance, faith and complete concentration, and the hunger for liberation. The intellectual preparation includes the three stages of hearing, reflection and meditation. Thus, the jnaana path demands that the seeker is a person of healthy body, strong-will, keen mind and sharp intellect. If these qualities are expected of the aspirant, even before he begins the process of Brahmaajijnaasa, a great majority of the people in the world would never be able begin the process of self-realization. Thus, the path of Shankara to self-realization is not practical in the sense that majority of the people would not be able to use it. This is probably the reason that Shankara spoke of the indirect method of karma and bhakti, as preparation for the jnaana path. Thus, the Shankarite path to Brahmaanubhava is not practical, as it aims at helping only the intellectual and the wise persons for attaining self-realization, leaving out the vast majority of people.

Shankara does not give importance to the bodily nature of man. For him, body is part of the phenomenal existence, which is not the ultimate reality. Therefore, body has only a relative existence. He speaks of three levels in the bodily nature of man, viz., the gross body, the subtle body and the bliss body, each of which belongs to the realm of maayaa. Of these, only the gross body ceases to be at death, while the other two bodies survive death and constitute subtle and bliss bodies, giving the basis for the gross body jiiva takes in the next birth. The loss of the gross body, at the death of jiiva is compared to a snake casting off its skin, when it does not perform the proper function of the snake. Body is the seat of emotions and appetites, which prevent the self from attaining the true goal of man. Therefore, one's attitude towards his body is one of discipline and control. The body must be trained by the use of Hathayoga, in order that it can be submitted to the directions of the inner self. Body and bodily existence are the result of the past karma. When all the fruits of the actions are removed, body will also cease to be. In the state of Jiivanmukti, the liberated person continues to live in the bodily state because of the effects of the accumulated karma still bearing fruit (praarabdha), but having no attachments to the body. In the state of Videhamukti, the Videhamukta passes into a calm existence, having lost to the empirical world and shedding the artificial personality, including the body, that is characteristic of the jiiva, the psycho-physical-conscious organism. Therefore, Shankara does not envisage the existence of the body, at the final state of liberation, as Christianity recognizes the resurrection of the body and a bodily existence after resurrection. From what we have said it is clear that, for Shankara, the bodily state of man is a product of maayaa, and it ceases to exist at the dawn of true knowledge. Thus, in Shankarite system of thought, the bodily nature of man is not given the rightful place, as it has no real existence and that it ha no place in the ultimate state of man's existence.

In this section, we would take up the defense of a few general issues, which had been raised against Shankara by later Advaitic schools, most notably by the Qualified Non-Dualism (Vshistaadvaita) of Ramaanuja and a number of western scholars. Of the many questions that are raised against the Non-dualism of Shankara, we will consider five, which remain central today. The first issue pertains to the reality of the external world. In this regard some scholars consider Shankara as a subjective idealist, as he seems to attribute no reality to the external world. Secondly, in the west, many may think that Advaita Vedaanta is a sort of pantheism, according to which the individual soul loses, as it were, its identity and becomes one with Brahman. Thirdly, Shankara is often accused of down playing significance of ethical system, as he did not work out a system of morality that would be applicable to the individual at every stage of his existence in the world. The fourth objection that is brought against Advaita Vedaanta is that it is anti-worship and anti-religion in character, since the liberated man is identical with Brahman. Finally, many consider Shankara as negative and pessimistic in his approach to reality and attaining authentic human destiny. In the following pages, we will take up these criticisms leveled against Shankara's Advaita Vedaanta and see whether the contentions of these critics are founded on facts.

The most contested question in Shankara's Advaita philosophy concerns the reality of the external world. Shankara very strongly holds the view that Brahman is absolutely real and the external world is maayaa. The term maayaa is often translated as illusion or unreality. Some scholars take this translation of the term literally and argue that Shankara denied the existence of the external world. They try to fit Shankara and his Advaita Vedaanta into the Hegelian or Berkeleyan idealistic tradition. They consider him as a subjective idealist, who reduces the external world logically to the knowing and perceiving subject. Thus, according to these thinkers, Shankara attributes no reality to the external world, which depends only on the subjective consciousness of the perceiver. Max Mueller summarizes his position on this point as follows: "In one half verse I shall tell you what has been taught in thousands of volumes: Brahman is true, the world is false; the soul is Brahman and nothing else."¹ Chakravarti affirms the same point when he says, "It is Shankara alone who says that it should be concluded that everything except Brahman is illusion, because Brahman is the one reality."²

Many thinkers deny the idealistic interpretation of Shankara's concept of maayaa. They say that by his concept of Brahmaanubhaba, Shankara does not teach that the world is unreal. R. Pratap Singh says, " Shankara's intention is not to preach any variety of subjective idealism or to lay foundation on mentalism."³ Many other thinkers share this view. K. C. Bhattacharrya considers that maayaa "cannot be characterized as whither real or as unreal." ⁴ K. A. Krishnamurthy Iyer notes that " the world is not a mere phantasy; it is not a mere summer dream; it is but a disguise worn by reality to the time-bound intellect."⁵ Radhakrishnan remarks that for Shankara "unreal the world is, illusory it is not." ⁶ According to the second group of thinkers, Shankara did recognize the reality of the reality of the external world, even though he did not consider maayaa as the absolute reality.

It would seem that the latter group of thinkers present, the true position of Shankara on the reality of the external world. Shankara is neither a Hegelian, nor a Berkelyan, or any kind of subjective idealist. In order to understand the true position of Shankara on this point we need to make distinction between different kinds of experiences. The first kind of experience is called pratabhasika (illusory experience), which consists in experiencing an object, which is not present before one's senses. For instance, a rope is seen as a snake, or a shell lying on the beach is seen as a piece of sliver in the moonlight. There is no real snake or silver piece; they are only mistaken perceptions. This kind of illusory experience can be contradicted in the worldly state. For instance, the true nature of the things that appeared as a snake or as a piece of silver, (viz., the rope and the shell respectively) can be known by a true perception of the same objects. Therefore, such experiences are false perceptions.

The second kind of experience is vyavahaarika (the empirical experience), which consists in the universe of every day perception, the world of names and forms. This is the realm of maayaa. It is not merely illusory, but phenomenal. Unlike the illusory experience, the phenomenal experience is neither non-existent (abhaava) nor void (suunya). The illusory experience of seeing a snake when there is no snake and seeing a piece of silver on a shell, take place in the phenomenal realm. In this worldly state the phenomenal world and its existence can never be contradicted. Therefore, Shankara never denies the reality of the phenomenal world, even though he denies the assumption that the vyavahaarika world is ultimately real. In Brahma-Suutra Bhaasya we find Shankara giving a lengthy argument for the existence of the phenomenal world from the phenomenological point of view. He says that the external world is a fact of consciousness and so one cannot contradict its existence.

From this passage, it is obvious that Shankara does not deny the reality of the external world. He does consider the world as existing out side the subjective consciousness. The subject-object distinctions belong to the realm of the phenomena. We do not make use of the pramaana or the means of knowledge to attain some truth about the relative realities. Thus, the empirical world is real, from the phenomenal point of view and its existence is related only to the empirical realm. From the empirical perspective, we can never say that the world of our experience is unreal and non-existent.

Thirdly, Shankara speaks of absolute experience, i.e., Brahmaanubhava, which is absolute knowledge and identity of the self with Brahman. This experience as we have seen, at length, is trans-empirical and is of the nature of Brahman. It is eternal and indescribable. It is attained by the continual removal of ignorance, which is the source of multiplicity. In this state of Brahmaanubhava, the Brahmajnaani knows that he is Brahman, and sees everything in himself, i.e., he sees everything in terms of oneness. It is from the point f view of paramaartha or transcendental experience that the phenomenal world is unreal. From the point of view of the phenomenal world, however, as Shankara clearly pointed out, this relative world is real because we can never contradict or question the existence of the reality of the world, as long as we are fully part of the phenomena. But when one attains the absolute oneness with Brahman all duality is eliminated. Thus, from the point of view of the absolute experience, the phenomenal world is unreal or relatively real. Therefore, Shankara would say that the phenomenal world is real but not ultimately real. It is essential to appreciate this distinction between vyavahaarika experience and Brahmaanubhava. The two are infinitely apart from each other. It we take one for the other, it become impossible to understand Shankara's position clearly. For "any confusion between the two [vyavahaarika and Brahmaanubhava], is precisely the basic characteristic of the false superimposition (adhyaasa), which is ignorance."⁸ 

From what has been said, it is clear that Shankara by his doctrine of Brahmaanubhava and the self's absolute oneness with Brahman, does not speak of a dissolution of the world. At the attainment of Brahmaanubhava, the external world is not destroyed or annihilated. But, the Brahmajnaani views the world no longer from the phenomenal point of view. He sees everything in terms of oneness, which is characteristic of Brahmaanubhava. Thus, from the point of view of the liberated man the phenomenal world is real in the relative sense, because the state he is in, i.e., his absolute identity with Brahman is that which is really real. As long as one tries to understand Shankara's Advaita philosophy purely from the phenomenal point of view, he will always meet with contradictions, for what is absolutely true is the transcendental and trans-empirical.

Many consider Advaita Vedaanta to be pantheistic, because self-realization consists in the identity of the self and Brahman. Those who hold this view cite the mahaavaakya `That art Thou' in their support.<sup>9</sup> In interpreting the above mentioned Vedaantic aphorism, we say that it cannot be interpreted in the direct meaning of `That' and `Thou', viz., Iishvara and jiiva, since such a union between the supreme Lord and the limited soul is not possible. It its implied meaning `That' refers to Brahman and `Thou' refers to Aatman. Brahman is the absolute and eternal reality in the universe and Aatman is the pure consciousness, the eternal reality behind the individual self. Brahman and Aatman are eternally identical. In Brahmaanubhava, as we know, there is not experiencer and the experienced. What really happens in Brahmaanubhava is that the self, removed of all ignorance and its effects, realizes its eternal identity with Brahman. Thus, Brahmaanubhava cannot be considered as involving an identity between supreme Lord and the soul. Besides, the terms, `union' and `identity', are used figuratively because there is not new identity reached in Brahmaanubhava, but only the existing eternal identity between Brahman and Aatman is realized. Again there is no notion of God (as a theist would understand) in Shankara's thought. He does not consider Brahman as a deity to be worshipped or to be devoted to, but as the absolute ontological reality behind all the phenomena, which is identical with the self, the pure consciousness. So, for Shankara Brahman is not to be worshipped, but to be realized. If Brahman is viewed as a deity to be worshipped, and such a deity is seen as being identical with everything in the universe, then we have a pantheistic world-view. Since Shankara does not consider Brahman as deity who is identical with the universe, it seems clear that in Shankara's Advaita there is no trace of pantheism. Advaita goes beyond the distinction of theism, atheism and pantheism, as the question of God is not at all an issue in Advaita Vedaanta. Therefore, Shankarite thought does not involve any form of `isms' that views the absolute reality in terms of Godhead. But rather it is a mystical philosophy that aims at making everyone aware of his true ontological nature, i.e., Brahman and move towards attaining it.

Many scholars point out that Advita Vedaanta takes least interest in moral questions. Shankara does not enter into detailed consideration of practical or theoretical moral questions. If ethics means an independent inquiry into the problems of and questions concerning the meaning of values, the justification of moral judgments, the analysis of moral concepts and concrete behavior, then Shankara does not work out a detailed ethical system.¹⁰ He did not do so for the following reasons. Advaita Philosophy considered in itself, as a system of thought, is a theory and practice of value.¹¹ The sole intention of Advaita Vedaanta is to help every one attain his true ontological nature, viz., Brahman. Each move towards this ultimate goal is a move from the lesser to the greater. Therefore, the question of value is part and parcel of every stage of Advaitic system and there is no need to treat morality specifically and separately. Besides, after one has attained self-realization, there is no place for morality at all, since the realized man, like self-realization is beyond all moral distinctions. But Shankara did suggest the need of practicing Hathayoga to discipline the body from all its evil inclinations and tendencies, thereby enable it to be open for genuine moral life. Besides, he also spoke of the practice of renunciation of the pleasures, attachments to the things of the world and the practice of six treasures (virtues), before one can begin the study of the Vedaantic statements. Thus, according to Shankara, such moral virtues such as compassion, self-control, charity and non-injury have as their sole purpose to help and to support the aspirant in the early stages of Brahmaajijnaasa. Morality is only a means for the attainment of the ultimate spiritual goal and not an end in itself. When a person attains self-realization he does not stop living a moral life. Jiivanmukta is not a superman who does not care for moral values and moral living. The realized man still lives a moral life but without any effort on his part. All these virtues he practiced during the state of moral preparation adorn the Jiivanmukta as if jewels in his personality. Thus, there is no moral code required for the liberated man, as he cannot but live an authentic life in the state of self-realization. Thus, morality is only preparatory rather than mandatory in Shankara's thought. It is in this sense that Shankara gave a secondary place for ethics in his philosophy. This is also the reason why Shankara did not work out an elaborate system of ethics. But, he worked out a moral code that would help the aspirant to purify himself before he can take upon himself seriously the study of the scriptures. Thus, though, there is no well worked out ethical system in Shankara's thought, it is not non-ethical, but rather it is a system of value that calls the aspirant of Brahmaanubhava to move from the lower to the higher and finally to the highest state of Brahman-experience.

Non-Advaitins often content that as Advaita Vedaanta believes in an absolute, attributeless and impersonal Brahman, it is against religion and worship of God.¹² In fact the goal and the purpose of Advaita Vedaanta is to help the aspirant to recognize the passing nature of this universe, the world of multiplicity, including the supreme Lord Iishvara, and attain absolute identity with Brahman, the ultimate reality. Therefore, from the very outset of his initiation into the process of Brahmaajijnaasa, Guru instructs the aspirant about the symbolic nature of the personal God, who is the Lord of the Universe.

At this early state of Brahmaajijnaasa, the student has not attained the full knowledge about the absolute Brahman. Hence he is encouraged to worship the personal God, and to practice all devotions. Worship of God and the devotional practices, which the aspirant practices at this stage, frees him from the distractions and the attractions of the external world, helps him to fix his mind on higher realities, and strengthens his power of concentration. Realizing his limitations the aspirant takes recourse to prayer and other external devotional practices which help him to move towards his ultimate goal of self-realization. Once he has reached this absolute state, all distinctions between personal God and the worshiper vanish, as the self realizes its true nature. Just as one gets rid of the differences between a clay lion and a clay sheep when he reduces them to their material cause, viz., the clay, so too the aspirant and the personal God are reduced to their ultimate cause Brahman and lose their differences when Brahmaanubhava is attained.

Thus, according to Shankara, in the state of self-realization there is no need for religion, devotional practices or worship of God for the realized man. Unlike other theistic systems of thought, for Advaita Vedaanta, religion and worship of God are not ends-in-themselves, but means to the ultimate realization of the self. Nevertheless, Shankara did recognize the important role worship and devotion play in the early stages of aspirant's way to self-realization. He wrote many hymns in praise of popular deities like Shiva, Vishnu and Divine Mother, to help ordinary people to move towards their ultimate realization. These devotions are aimed at helping ordinary people at the initial state of Brahmaajijnaasa. Shankara himself lived out the religious practices and devotion to various deities as the Jiivanmukta, not because he needed it, but as an example for others. Therefore, for Shankara, devotion and worship of the personal God are significant in the life of the aspirant, but only as means rather than as the end.

Another accusation against Shankara is that his approach to reality is negative and pessimistic.¹³ Those who hold this view claim that Advaita Vedaanta is a sort of Nihilism, because the use of `neti neti' and the denial of everything in trying to describe Brahman ultimately lead to void (suunya). On the other hand, the contention of these thinkers seems to be wrong. More than any other philosophers in the history of Indian thought, Shankara pointed out the fundamental and ultimate spiritual nature of the universe and the individual. He declared that we are greater than we think we are. Man, in ignorance, sees him as limited, finite, and associated with the body, whereas in reality, he is the supreme and pure consciousness. Therefore, Shankara is neither negative nor pessimistic in his approach to reality. Rather he affirms the absolute nature of the individual soul and the universe. In doing this, he makes use of the negative method (apavaada) for achieving realization of the ontological state of absolute identity with Brahman, because self-realization being trans-empirical is beyond and above all that is phenomenal. So, it is not within our power to grasp from the empirical point of view. All that we can do by way of understanding this state is to use the negative method and describe what this state is not. Thus, though Shankara uses the negative method, its purpose is absolute identity of the self with Brahman, i.e., Brahmaanubhava. Therefore, there is neither pessimism nor nihilism in Shankara's philosophy, but it is a positive and purposive thinking, that aims at taking everyone to the highest level of existence.

We can summarize the main intent of Shankara as follows. Shankara's non-dualistic approach to reality and his Advaitic understanding of self-realization do give a reasonable explanation to the basic issues of philosophy, if, like Shankara, one accepts the distinction between the phenomenal experience of reality (vyavahaarika) and the transcendental experience of reality (Brahmaanubhava). This distinction is crucial for the understanding of Shankara's Advaita Philosophy. The two are different approaches to the one and the same reality. The former is characterized by duality and subject-object distinction while, oneness and identity characterize the latter. At the same time one must not take these two approaches as different world-views imposed by the subjective consciousness, as scholars who consider Shankara as a subjective idealist tend to do.

In fact, the two approaches are not construction of the subjective consciousness, but tow ontological states in one's understanding of reality. In other words, reality is eternally present in its true nature and it does not depend on our subjective consciousness. The ontological truth about reality is that Brahman is the absolute reality in relation to which the phenomenal world is relatively real. This has always been the ontological fact. It does not come about at the time, when it is recognized by the subjective consciousness, nor it is construction of the mental process of knowing. For Shankara this truth is obtained from the Scripture. As long as one is in the phenomenal world and is fully conditioned by it, one cannot recognize anything higher than the phenomena, and he accepts the phenomenal world as the absolute reality. When, by the removal of ignorance and its effects, one goes beyond the empirical experience and experiences the identity of oneself with the absolute Brahman, one sees the true reality as it is. Then one recognizes the unreality or the passing nature of the phenomenal world.

These stages of one's experience in the understanding of reality can be compared with the dream and the waking state. When a person is in the dream-state and perceives a dream, he is fully certain that the experience he is going through is real, as in the dream-state one does not doubt the reality of the dream. But as he awakes he realizes how illusory the dream is. In the same way when one attain self-realization one sees the passing and unreal nature of the phenomenal world. Thus, after the realization of the identity of the self with Brahman, the reality remains the same as before; but we have gained only the knowledge of the fact. In the illustration of mistakenly seeing a snake for a rope the rope remains a rope during and after the removal of the illusion of the rope-snake. We have gained the truth about the fact that this particular object we perceived was not a snake, but a rope. In the same way, when Brahmaanubhava is attained, we realize that what we perceived in the phenomenal experience with its differences and multiplicity, is the one and the same absolute Brahman. Thus, self-realization does not destroy the reality of the phenomenal world, but indicates that how limited the phenomenal reality is. Brahmaanubhava, therefore, is the realization of the absolute and unchanging reality. It is the realization, which involves the supreme consummation or the ripening of the scriptural knowledge. It brings about freedom from ignorance and subject-object duality. It is an integral experience in which the whole personality of the aspirant participates and gets transformed.¹⁴ 

1. Max Mueller F.: The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), pp. 121-122.

2. Sures Chandra Chakravarti: The Philosophy of the Upanishads (Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press, 1953), p. ix.

3. Ram Pratap Singh, Vedaanta of Shankara (Jaipur: Bharat Publishing House, 1949), p. 333.

4. Krishna Chandra Bhattacharrya, Studies in Philosophy, Vol. II (Calcutta: Progressive Publishers, 1958), p. 118.

5. K.A. Kirsnha Iyer, Vedaanta or Science of Reality (Madras: Ganesh and Co., 1930), p. 91.

6. Radhakrishnan S., Indian Philosophy, Vol. 11, p. 585.

7. BSB, Thaibaut, II, ii, 28, pp. 419-420.

8. Eliot Dautsch, p. 95.

9. Cf. Smet De R.V., p. 266.

10. Cf. Eliot Deutsch, p. 99.

11. Cf. Ibid.

12. Cf. AB, Swami Nihilananda, p. x.

13. Cf. ibid., p. xi.

14. Cf. Ramamurthi A., p. 184.

15. James V. McGlynn and Paul Mary Farley, The Metaphysics of Being and God (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs., 1966), pp. 247-248.