ajAti vAda

described as in the upanishads, as Truth (satyam), Knowledge (jnAnam), Infinite
(anantam), or as Being (sat), Consciousness (cit), Bliss (Ananda), but none of these
terms can be truly interpreted as attributes of brahman as a Super-person/God. Rather, it
is because brahman exists, that this whole universe is possible. It is because brahman
exists that man ascribes attributes to brahman. However, brahman's true nature cannot be
captured in words, for all these attributes are ultimately just words. Hence, it is man's
ignorance of Its true nature that postulates attributes to brahman, thereby describing It in
saguNa terms (with attributes). This saguNa brahman is ISvara, the Lord, whose
essential reality as brahman is not dependent on anything else, and does not change
because of the production of this universe. Therefore, advaita holds that brahman's own
nature (svarUpa- lakshaNa) is devoid of any attributes (nirguNa), while It is seen for the
temporary purposes of explaining creation (taTastha- lakshaNa) to be ISvara, with
attributes (saguNa).
So much for saguNa and nirguNa brahman. If brahman cannot be held to have suffered
any change because of creation of the universe, then what is the status of this universe?
Since the cause does not undergo any change in the process of producing the effect, it is
held that the cause alone is Real. The universe only partakes in reality inasmuch as it is
to be considered as dependent on brahman. Therefore the upanishads say, " sarvam.
khalvidam. brahma." If the universe is considered to be independent of brahman, then it
has no real Reality, although the world of human perception can never reveal this truth.
This is simply because brahman Itself is never an object of human perception. It is this
characteristic of dualistic knowledge, derived from perception alone, that prompts the
advaitin to call it mithyAjnAna (false knowledge).
avidyA and mAyA -
Why does human perception fail to see brahman directly? SankarAcArya attributes it
sometimes to avidyA (ignorance) and sometimes to mAyA (the power to deceive). As the
bRhadAraNyaka upanishad puts it, "vijnAtAram. are kena vijAnIyAt?" - How is the
Knower Itself to be known? It also stands to reason, therefore, that any effort at
characterizing brahman falls far short of brahman. No words reach brahman; how can
mere verbal descriptions claim to describe It? advaita now turns to the ancient technique
of adhyAropa-apavAda (sublation of superimposition) to explain this. Thus, although
brahman is called the instrumental and material cause of the universe, advaita tells us
that this is only a preliminary view of brahman, motivated by a need to explain creation
of the universe. In order to understand brahman, one has to go beyond this preliminary
view, and understand brahman in Itself, not necessarily in relation to the universe. Then
it is understood that the whole universe is only superimposed on the underlying Reality
that is brahman. To really know brahman, one needs to sublate this superimposition, and
look at the substratum (adhishThAna) that is brahman. As for the exact nature of avidyA
and mAyA, later authors seem divided into two major schools of thought, namely the
bhAmatI and the vivaraNa schools.
brahman = Atman -
What then of the human self, the jIva? It is here that advaita comes up with the most