Blog

Many people who look at Vedic philosophy in current times, understand it as Advaita, which is an interpretation of Vedanta, that claims that the ultimately reality is a singular, unified existence called Brahman, from which the world is produced, and the world is maya or illusion. The Brahman is equated with consciousness, although how consciousness comes under illusion is a contentious issue since the time of saṅkaracarya who first propounded Advaita but did not provide a clear explanation of the fall into illusion. Subsequent interpretations of Vedanta have tried to address these problems, but the Advaita philosophers blithely ignore them. This post discusses the problems in Advaita, how they have been addressed by subsequent interpretations ofVedanta and what these interpretations mean for the understanding of Vedanta itself. Finally, the post discusses how a proper understanding of Vedanta changes the nature of science.

Understanding the Meaning of Existence

Pervasive across Vedic philosophy is the discussion of the three aspects of reality-called sat, chit, and ananda. The term sat has two distinct meanings-truth and existence. In this world, there are things that exist, but they are untrue; for example, we all have illusions, hallucinations, dreams, and mistaken ideas. All these exist, but they are not true. Both reality and the material world are therefore existent, but one is true, and the other is false. This distinction between the true and false existence is clearly described in the Bhagavad-Gita 2.16, and connected to the nature of change as follows:

nasato vidyate bhavo
nabhavo vidyate sataḥ
ubhayor api drsṭo ’ntas
tv anayos tattva-darsibhiḥ

Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

The term asat denotes that which exists and is false. The termbhava means manifestation; similarly abhava means disappearance. So, essentially, the false existence appears and disappears, while the true existence persists permanently. In other words, if something appears and disappears, it should automatically be considered false: change equals false, and unchanging equals truth.

The material world is therefore existent, but because it changes, it is false. Similarly, reality is that which remains unchanged, and therefore it is true. Time is therefore said to destroy and create false things; but time does not create and destroy the truth. Truth is eternal, false ideas are temporary.

Understanding the Advaita Philosophy

Advaita also recognizes the two meanings of sat-namely existence and truth-and calls the reality which is both existent and true (because it doesn’t change with time) Brahman. The material world which is existent and false (and therefore changes with time) is called maya. Some recent descriptions of Advaitahave, however, gone so far to misrepresent the word mithya-which means false-to mean non-existent. They clearly don’t understand the difference between existence and truth. Anyone who disagrees with this assessment only has to pick up a dictionary and see the meaning of mithya.

The point is that if this body is temporary, then it must be false. If the mind is temporary and acquires and discards ideas, it must be false. Only that which is never lost and never discarded is true. There is, hence, in Advaita philosophy, a simple test of truth: Does this idea or thing that you consider true, permanent? If yes, then it is true. If not, then it is false. If your ideas are going to change, then by definition they are false. If your body is going to change, then by definition it is false. All phenomena that are going to change, therefore, are considered false. This simple test of truth is easy to understand and can be used by anyone in evaluating the truthfulness of a claim. By extension, the things or ideas that live longer are “more true”, and those that are short lived are “less true”.

The material world is produced through a gradual development of falsities. The original falsity is very long-lived, and extends to the lifespan of the universe-which is described in Vedic cosmology to be about 311 trillion years. This falsity is “more true” as compared to the falsities that follow, which are “less true”, because they exist for shorter durations. Ultimately you get to atomic objects which are very short lived, and are therefore the “least true”. Of course, all these more and less true entities exist for some durations, so they are “real” for those durations. But they ultimately disappear, and are therefore ultimately false. The duration of their existence is a measure of the extent of their truth. Atomic objects are least true, although they exist temporarily, because they live very short durations.

The World is Symbolic

Since the evolution of the material world depends on the extent of its truth, the study of this world cannot be based on the postulates about the existence. If the existent is true, it will never disappear. If the existent is false, it will appear and disappear, based on the extent of its truth. The study of the material world must therefore be based on the concerns about truth.

To accommodate both existence and truth, material objects must be symbols of meaning. The existence of the symbol is temporary if the meaning of that symbol is false. The extent of its falsity decides how long it lives. The evolution of matter is therefore not dependent on its existence–i.e. its material constitution or properties; it is rather dependent on the extent of its truth, which can only be decided if we understand its meaning.

The Brahman is a symbol: it exists and it is true. Maya is also a symbol, but it appears and disappears. The difference betweenBrahman and Maya is based on their truth, which depends on their meanings. The material world is temporary, because comprises illusions, hallucinations, dreams, impossible desires, unachievable plans, and false ideas. The evolution of the world thus depends on its meanings, which is the cause of its evolution. Modern science measures existence and discards meanings. In other words, it is trying to formulate laws of existence, when the laws should be of meanings.

The nature of causality in modern science is therefore misconstrued. This causality is supposedly based on the existence of objects and their properties. When this causality is based on the truth of meanings, then a completely different science and explanation of the world can be built. This explanation will say that this thing is changing because it is false; it is changing slowly because it is less false.

The Modern Misrepresentation of Advaita

Modern philosophers who speak of Advaita misrepresent it. This misrepresentation claims that Brahman is consciousness, when it is only an idea that is true, and therefore permanent-i.e. free from the effect of time, and the effect of the laws of nature based on falsity of ideas. In the simplest form, this idea says: “something exists”, or simply, “there is some reality”. This idea doesn’t entail that “I exist permanently” or that “I am reality”. The existence of reality and the identification with that reality are two different things-as different as “there is some reality” and “I am that reality”. Brahman is therefore an idea-namely that “there is some reality”-and consciousness is that which creates this idea.

Brahman is therefore not fundamental. Rather an even deeper reality-called consciousness, which has the ability of choice-produces this idea or belief: namely that I exist eternally. Note that consciousness need not produce such an idea; it can also produce false ideas, which are called maya.  Both Brahman andmaya are therefore offshoots of consciousness and a result of its choices: the true choice is called Brahman and the false choice is called maya. Neither Brahman nor maya is therefore fundamental. Rather, both of these are simply choices of consciousness because both are just ideas. These ideas are “produced” by consciousness, but they are not the only possible choices.

Because modern Advaita misrepresentation equates Brahmanwith consciousness, two problems arise.

• First, Advaita cannot explain how something that is true and eternal produces something that is false and temporary-other than to insist that the world really does not exist.
• Second, Advaita cannot accept the existence of other kinds of choices, which could potentially produce other ideas of ideas and experiences beyond the false material world.

These two problems would not arise, if Brahman was distinct from consciousness, and consciousness was equated with choice, and this choice produced true and false ideas. But it would radically change the understanding of the material world too: matter is produced from false choices. It is therefore certainly dependent on consciousness and choice, but those choices have created false ideas, which causes these ideas to forcibly evolve by time, depending on the extent of their falsity.

Once we accept that material world is false choices, then we can ask: What are true choices? Brahman is the beginning of the true choices-i.e. the idea that I exist permanently. But beyond this idea there are many more ideas, which can be produced from choices, which are also true ideas, and therefore exist permanently. Vedic texts describe that there are six such ideas-namely, knowledge, beauty, fame, opulence, power, and renunciation-which can be produced from choices. The idea that “I exist” is the beginning of the truth, but it is not the end. However, if you claim that “I exist” is the only reality, then I can only know the idea of my existence but I cannot develop this idea of my own existence into more refined ideas such as I can know, I can be beautiful, I can be powerful, I can be rich, or I can be renounced. You end up denying any kind of idea beyond the knowledge “I exist”.

A Contrast with Cartesian Dualism

A contrast with Descartes is helpful here. Descartes doubted all forms of existence, but claimed that he cannot doubt his own existence. From the certainty of his own existence, he went on to build all other kinds of claims. The modern misrepresentation ofAdvaita claims that once I know myself to exist, then I cannot possibly know anything else, because I arrived at the conclusion of my existence by rejecting the world’s truth. This claim is wrong because “my eternal existence” is also an idea, produced by a choice. This choice is not limited to just knowing the existence of the self; it can also extend into other kinds of choices which are true or false. In other words, just as there is a world of false ideas, there can be another world of true ideas, beyond the material world. The process by which the false world is created involves choices. Similarly, there can be a world of truths, which is also produced from choices.

When Descartes created the mind-body dualism, he did not recognize that the body is an idea, that it is an idea produced from the choices of the mind, or that the choices could be false. He recognized the existence of hallucination and illusion, but did not consider the fact that these illusions could also exist in matter as books, art, society, and relationships. In other words, the mind in Cartesian philosophy is a symbol, but matter is not symbolic, because matter is never true or false; it only exists. This problem would not arise if mind was choices which could be true or false, and matter was a symbol of true or false choices. In such a scenario, the body would be produced from the choices of consciousness, although this body would also be a symbol of false ideas such as race, nationality, religion, etc.

The origin of the mind-body problem lies in the fact that Descartes considered the body to exist even when the mind did not exist. In other words, the world was objective, and mind was its subjective interpretation. The resulting mind-body interaction problem arises because two “substances” are postulated. If the second substance-body-were produced from the mind, the problem would never arise. But that kind of claim would also overturn modern thinking about matter: matter would be the product of choices, and there would be two kinds of choices-namely, true and false.

The problem of dualism arises when there are two substances, but does not arise when the second entity is produced from the first. Clearly, this second entity can be false, as evidenced by the existence of illusions. Therefore, to address this problem, we must say that there can also be true entities produced from the first. In a sense, there is only one reality-consciousness-which produces choices, and there are true and false choices. Matter is also a choice, although a false one.

The interaction between matter and consciousness therefore involves choices. By making false choices, we produce matter, and by accepting the previously produced matter, we know falsities. Matter comes out of consciousness as choices, and it goes back into consciousness as choices. Vedic texts explain this thesis by describing the three aspects of choices-jnana, bala, and kriya. The term ‘bala’ is the ability to make choices. The term ‘kriya’ represents the production of ideas due to choices. And the term ‘jnana’ denotes the absorption of these ideas due to choices. In short, there are two kinds of choices: of creating ideas, and of knowing ideas. Knowledge is thus a choice: we can accept something as true, or reject something as false. Activity is also choice: we can create something true or false.

The Problem of Buridan’s Ass

The French philosopher Jean Buridan articulated a classical problem of choice with the example of a hungry and thirsty ass, who has a pile of hay and a bucket of water in front, but cannot decide whether to eat or drink first. The problem of choice amounts to the problem of ordering (which is the problem of numbers too): which should come first-water or hay? In other words, we can say that we have the ability to choose, but that doesn’t define what we should choose. Should we choose hay or water? Unless you have a way of choosing between two things, your choice is meaningless.

You might say that we can just choose “randomly”, and this is how most people understand choices today: since they are our choices, we are the final arbiters of this choosing, and therefore whatever we choose, the choices cannot be judged by any other parameter beyond ourselves. How can we then even say that there is some true choice vs. a false choice? After all, it is just our choice, and we are the final arbiters of this choice, so whatever choice we make must ultimately be the true choice.

In classical Western epistemology, the truth of our knowledge depends on the world, which exists even when we don’t exist. This existence creates the mind-body problem, as we have seen. The solution to this problem is that matter is produced from choices, and known by choices. But, if we simply relegate the truth to our choice, then there can never be false ideas. After all, they are simply our choices, and there is nothing beyond what we choose, and how we choose it. Everything I choose, therefore, must be true, as far as I am concerned. And there is nothing other than this choice that can judge the choice.

This problem exists in in the modern misrepresentation ofAdvaita as well. If consciousness is the ultimate reality, and it produces some ideas through choices, then who is to say that this choice is false? Rather, we can simply argue that we made a choice, which produced some ideas, and no one is qualified to judge whether these choices are true or false. That position, in turn, leads to the collapse of epistemology, and eventually ofAdvaita itself: if we cannot say that something is true or false, then how can there be a distinction between Brahman and maya? If consciousness is the ultimately reality, then its choices cannot be subjected to questions such as truth or false. It is just a choice.

If all choices are equally good, because there is nothing outside consciousness to judge the nature of true and false, then there simply cannot be knowledge or judgement. Neither can we claim to know the universal laws of nature, not can we say that material world ‘entangles’ consciousness. There can therefore be no questions about getting out of material entanglement, because the entanglement and freedom are simply two choices, neither of which is truer or better in any sense.

The Necessity of God

If you succumb to materialism, you create the problem of mind. If you accept the mind and body as two different things, you create the problem of their interaction. If you claim that the body emerges from the consciousness, then you create a problem of true and false choices. In Advaita everyone is their own final arbiter of choosing-which begs the question of how we ever made a “wrong” choice such that it has to be corrected by “getting out” of such wrong choices. If you are the final judge of the choices you make, then how could you have ever made a choice that is subsequently called “wrong”? In other words, if you are indeed Brahman and transcendent to matter, then how did you fall down into matter? If this fall down amounts to a “mistake”, then there is a judgment that is outside you. And if there is indeed an external judgment, then you could not be the final arbiter of all your choices.

The last problem is addressed in Vedic texts by describing two kinds of observers. The first observer is the living entity like us, whose choices are not final in themselves, because they are can be judged as being true or false. The second observer is another kind of living entity-which we normally call God-whose choices are final, and no separate judgment can be applied. God emerges as a necessity in a philosophy that aims to solve the problem of epistemology-i.e. true or false choices.

If Brahman is true and maya is false, then this judgment depends on God, not on us. In other words, we don’t say that the world is false; it is rather God’s choice which produces the Absolute Truth that makes it false, and is the basis on which our choices arejudged. If our choice is compatible with the Absolute Truth, then this choice is Brahman; otherwise it is maya.

The things that we taste, touch, smell, see, and hear, are therefore not matter or maya. Rather, it is their compatibility or dissonance with the Absolute Truth is what makes them true or false. There is hence truth in this world, if that idea or meaning is compatible with Absolute Truth. This is where a true understanding of Vedanta significantly departs from the modern misrepresentation of Advaita, because Advaita rejects this entire world as being maya or falsity. In the proper understanding ofVedanta, even things in this world can be symbols of truth, if they are compatible with the Absolute Truth.

It therefore not enough to speak about Brahman and mayabecause we don’t know which is which. It is alright to say that something must be true while other things are false. But, how do we know that the eternity of the soul is the truth and the material world is false? As a materialist could argue, the opposite may also be true, and the eternity of the soul may be false, while the evolution of matter may be true. Which of these opposing positions represents the truth cannot be decided unless we postulate an idea which constitutes the axioms based on which we judge all choices. My beliefs are not necessarily true, unless I know about the truth against which I’m judged, and which lies outside me.

There is, hence, an internal inconsistency in Advaita because it considers each person as a “god”, and rejects a separate God. The inconsistency is that the so-called “god”-who is the final arbiter of all their choices-sometimes realizes that they made a mistake. Clearly, the criteria of their judgement in the past and the present must have changed for the choice to change. And what is this criteria other than themselves? If you are the final arbiter of choice, then you can never be wrong. If Brahman is the eternal truth, then how can it sometimes make a mistake, which it regrets at a later point in time?

The Incompleteness of Advaita

Advaita is not the whole truth, simply because there can be a mistake, and to judge that mistake, there must be some external criterion for the judgment to occur. This criterion is described in Vedic texts as God or Para-Brahman who is the principle or idea based on which other ideas are judged. If our choices produce numerous ideas, and these ideas can be false, then there must be a set of true ideas against which these ideas have to be judged. This set of true ideas is called Para-Brahman.

Para-Brahman is the “supreme idea” which always exists and is therefore always true because there is a living entity who chooses this idea, or produces this idea out of His choice, and never regrets it. This idea becomes His identity or personality, and it is so profound that He never gets bored of it, to even consider changing His choice. In other words, Para-Brahman is the idea that is eternal because it is so pleasing. If you never run out of the pleasure, you can never regret it, and think of producing a different idea. That Para-Brahman is the arbiter of all other ideas that are freely created.

There are some living entities who rebel against this arbitration of Para-Brahman. They ask themselves: Why does God have to be the final arbiter? Why can’t we create our own ideas about ourselves? Maybe our ideas are better than those that God has. What’s the harm in trying out other ideas?

The living entity confuses the God’s ability to freely choose and constitute the ultimate truth, with his own ability for free choices. God’s free choices are ultimate truth because the pleasure of that choice is unlimited. It is the highest choice, because every other choice produces a limited pleasure in comparison. When the resulting pleasure is limited, one eventually gets bored of it, and seeks new ideas. The temporariness of the idea therefore hinges on the fact that one eventually gets bored of it. The premise of Para-Brahman is that there is an idea which no one can ever get bored of.

Who is God? God is the living entity who produces the most pleasurable idea as His choice. This infinitely pleasurable idea is the seat of God, or His body. Since God never gives up this idea, His body is eternal, and His choice of this body is His consciousness. We cannot distinguish between the body and soul of God, because the soul never changes the body, since this body is so infinitely pleasurable.

A closer examination of this infinitely pleasurable idea produces more such pleasurable ideas, just like the detailing of the idea of a car, produces the idea of a sedan. In one sense, the sedan is also a car, and in another sense, the car is not sedan. To observe these instances of the original pleasurable idea, God’s consciousness also instantiates; these instantiations are the individual living beings. God is, therefore, enjoying the idea of a car, while the individual living beings are enjoying individual cars. God’s body is the idea from which all other ideas emerge, and a soul’s body is one of those emerged ideas. The soul’s body is produced by God’s consciousness detailing His body. But to enjoy this new body, the consciousness also instantiates. In the sense that a sedan is a car, the soul and God are identical. However, in the sense that a car is not sedan, the soul and God are not identical.

Different Positions in Vedanta

Different interpretations of Vedanta have described this essential idea in different ways.

• The soul is a part of God, and this whole-part relationship is called Visisṭadvaita or non-separated nature in a specific sense.
• The soul is never equal to God, and this difference between soul and God is therefore sometimes calledDvaita or the difference between soul and God.
• The soul is considered simultaneously identical and separated from God, in the two ways outlined above, and this is called Dvaita-Advaita.
• When the parts of God are viewed as emanations of God, and yet parts of God, this is called Acintya-Bheda-Abheda-Tattva or simultaneous oneness and difference.

Just like individual cars are produced from the idea of car, and yet all these cars are also ideas which originally resided in the idea of car, there is a difference and yet not a difference. In so far as Advaita indicates that the whole and part are identical, there is partial truth in it. But in so far as the modern misrepresentation of Advaita rejects the difference between soul and God, it is a lie.

The different positions or descriptions of Vedanta, includingAdvaita, are not contradictory. But the modern misrepresentation of Advaita produces contradictions that did not exist previously. Under this misrepresentation, people are taught that they are just “gods”, only they have forgotten that they are god. If they only revive their memory or being god, they would actually be happy. That revival involves discarding the material ideas, and being happy with the idea that “I exist”. Clearly, that isn’t a very happy idea, although it is better than many other material ideas. However, ultimately, a living entity gets tired of this “I exist” idea and goes into search of other ideas, even if they are false.

The modern misrepresentation of Advaita is false because considering ourselves “god” is never true, since the living entity can make a mistake in its choices; it can discard an idea and choose another idea, since the ideas it chooses are always limited. It cannot pretend to become God simply by discarding all material ideas, because the pleasure from the idea that “I exist” is insignificant in comparison to the infinite pleasure that God’s original idea produces. In fact, the idea that “I exist” is so limited that the soul falls from this idea (called Brahman) into matter again and again, in the search for a better idea that can produce a greater degree of pleasure. That repeated fall down is contrary to the nature of God, which actually never discards His original ideas, because He never regrets them.

All living entities in the material world are characterized by a fundamental property-regret. We regret our past, we regret our present, and we hope for a better future. When we get to the future, we still regret it. In that sense, we are always unhappy, always looking for new ideas, which people normally call “invention” or “innovation”. Why would you invent if you were already happy? You can invent only when you are dissatisfied and unhappy, in the hope that you can be happy in future.

The Rejection of Religious Symbolism

One key characteristic of the modern misrepresentation ofAdvaita is the rejection of religious symbolism, considering these symbols as illusory as other material objects. This problem arises out of considering Brahman as the only true idea. Accordingly, all forms of God are rejected in a bid to save oneself from the apparent problems of polytheism. Polytheism is a problem only if you claim that just because there are many individual cars, the idea of a car must be unreal. This problem arises frommaterialism and not matter. If our understanding of matter was advanced to incorporate ideas, then the different forms of God would also be understood as different instantiations of the original idea.

The real problem of religious symbolism is that these symbols appear to be temporary quite like material objects, and if we were to apply the premise that all false things are temporary, then the inversion of that premise would lead us to conclude all temporary things must also be false. In other words, just because this world is temporary, it must also be false. But what if the symbol of the idea is temporary but the idea itself is not temporary? The temporariness of ideas is indicative of the fact that some ideas may never be observed by any conscious individual. Their disappearance indicates that they have become unmanifest to all observers. But some ideas only become unmanifest to some observers but remain available to other observers, then the ideas are not indeed not temporary.

Vedic texts describe that the true ideas are eternal, because some observer is always experiencing that idea, although in the present world these ideas become manifest and unmanifest. These ideas therefore appear and disappear in our vision, quite like the production and dissolution of a symbol from an idea. However, if these ideas are true, they are never unmanifest to allobservers. In other words, there is some truth that survives the dissolution of the entire universe, although sometimes this truth is visible even in the temporary universe. The forms of God are such ideas; they appear and disappear in our material vision, but when they disappear from our vision, they still exist in some visions.

Vedic view is therefore not polytheistic because forms of God are instantiations of the original form of God. It is also not material because these forms are never destroyed at the end of the universe. These forms are sat because they are true, and becausesat indicates those ideas which are always observed by some consciousness. The material world at large appears and disappears because the consciousness chooses and rejects this world over time. There is, however, another spiritual world in which consciousness never rejects ideas, because these ideas are continuously pleasurable. This world is therefore called Vaikunṭhawhich means devoid of kunṭha or unhappiness.

Vedanta and Science

A proper understanding of Vedanta can invigorate a new kind of science in which matter is described as “false ideas”. To be false, there must be meaning, not merely existence. And for meanings to exist, matter has to be understood as symbols, not objects. If the world is believed to be objects, then their complete and consistent knowledge would constitute the “true ideas” and the material world can never be rejected. This is pretty much the state in current science: scientists are attached to this material world, because they think that this present world is the truth. If this world’s existence was understood as “false ideas” then the search for truth would not reject the possibility of transcendence.

Modern science is in quest of laws based on existence, and a science based on Vedanta would be in quest of laws based ontruth. If something is true, it never appears or disappears. The material world evolves because it is untrue. Therefore how the material world evolves is premised on how the evolving matter is false ideas. The succession of false ideas depends on their incorrect meanings.

By understanding the evolution of false matter, we can also see that this evolution exists only when matter is false. As the matter becomes truer, the evolution slows down. This means that by understanding the ideas that change slow and fast, we get adirection towards truth. We can see that the ideas that evolve slowly must be truer, and therefore we must pursue the truth in that direction. When truth is pursued in that direction, we can find ideas that change slower and slower. This is an empirical criterion for judging the truth, and estimating if we are headed in the right direction in science. Ultimately, the quest for truth will take us out of the material world of false ideas. But the direction of this search, and progress from current false ideas into truer ideas can be within this world.

Advaita rejects the world of false ideas correctly. But it also incorrectly rejects the world of true ideas, and the existence of truth in this world, which is by and large false, but not completely false. In the proper understanding of Vedanta, there is truth in this world, but everything that we see is not true. Science cannot be done if everything in this world is false, and science becomes the pursuit of falsities if everything in this world is considered true. These problems don’t arise when there is some truth in this world, but everything is not true. The truth therefore can be sought in this world, but it must involve a vigorous rejection of the falsities. That kind of science would be pursuant to Vedic principles.

Conclusion

Modern materialism faces the problem of mind and meaning. If we try to solve this problem by adding mind and meaning on top of matter, we end up with the mind-body problem. This problem can only be solved by recognizing that the body emerges from the mind, and the mind emerges from the choices of consciousness; while matter is a symbol of the mind, the mind is a symbol of consciousness. However, these choices create a further problem of truth, or how these choices can be judged. The resolution of this problem requires God, who is the Absolute Truth, and the arbiter of truth. If we reject this truth, then we can never find a criterion to decide truth. Everyone will have their own notion of truth, and then the only truth that can be accepted across many individuals is one’s own existence. If, however, we accept the Absolute Truth, then the soul is a symbol of God, just like body is a symbol of the mind, and the mind is a symbol of the soul.

The symbol expresses the idea, but is never identical to the idea. Therefore, the soul can describe God, but doesn’t become identical to God. The modern misrepresentation of Advaitamakes each soul the final arbiter of truth a self-presumed god. It also goes too far in rejecting any truth in this world. The former is a rejection of the Vedic religion, and the latter a rejection of Vedic science. This is not the real Advaita position, although it has become the distorted form of Advaita in today’s world.

Source: http://www.ashishdalela.com/2016/04/19/advaita-the-partial-truth/