Posted on 07 Mar 2026. Share

Swami answers a question of an Advaita follower on Brahman and Parabrahman (Part-1)

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

Part-1

[Shri Durgaprasad asked:- Swami, following is the discussion between myself and an advaita follower in an advaita group on Brahman and Parabrahman. Swami, kindly explain. At Your lotus feet –Durgaprasad]

FIRST PART

[Shri Durgaprasad: Śaṅkara differentiated the awareness of all things (sarvajña) from the awareness of a few things (alpajña) using the terms ‘Īśvara’ and ‘jīva’ respectively. The word jīva stands for the ordinary awarenss of an individual soul and the word ‘Īśvara’ stands for the awareness with which the unimaginable God is associated...(Click here to read full question)

The awareness in Īśvara is qualified by the special unimaginable quality of knowing everything. Īśvara should not be taken to be the pure unimaginable God (Nirguṇa Brahman). Therefore, awareness should be understood to be a quality, property or a created item, which exists within creation. After all, awareness is an item that is understood by us. So, it cannot be the unimaginable God. The general awareness which exists as the common essence in both Īśvara and jīva is only a created item. It is not the Creator. Śaṅkara called this general awareness as ‘Brahman’. He did not use the word Brahman in the sense of unimaginable God. The word ‘Brahman’ can be used for any greatest item in a particular category. Awareness is the greatest item in the category of created items due to its preciousness (parā prakṛti). Hence, it can emphatically be called ‘Brahman’. But awareness is only an imaginable item and the unimaginable God is always greater than it. Therefore, the unimaginable God or the Creator is the absolute greatest item and should be called ‘Brahman’ in the absolute sense in the first place. Awareness occupies the second place. It is not the Creator but it is the greatest item in creation. Now if you call both these items—unimaginable God and awareness—by the same word Brahman, it will definitely lead to confusion. You will then certainly mistake the general awareness to be the unimaginable God.

Therefore, Śaṅkara introduced a new term ‘Parabrahman’, which means ‘that which is other than Brahman’. The prefix ‘para’ also means ‘other than’. He clearly mentioned the meaning of Parabrahman as that Entity which is beyond words (Mauna vyākhyā prakaṭita Parabrahma…). It is only the Unimaginable Entity or the unimaginable God which can never be expressed by words.

Michael Chandra: When you separate consciousness from Brahman, you create a quality, a distinction. When you distinguish Brahman and Parabrahman you again create duality. You will need to provide citations from the Śruti and Śaṅkara to support your ideas.

Durgaprasad: Please refer to the following two Parabrahma Sutras composed by Shri Datta Swami, which clarify some points related to the term Parabrahman.

prāmāṇikābhyāṁ prayujyate|2|
The word Parabrahman is used by two authorities i.e., Krishna and Śaṅkara.

paraṁ bhede śreṣṭhapunarukteḥ|3|
The word ‘param’ used in the Gita means ‘different’ and not ‘great’, since the latter results in the defect of repetition.

Michael Chandra: I am not a Sanskritist but regarding Gita 13.13, Śaṅkara addresses the issue of tautology or repetition by attaching ‘param’ to [neighboring words] either as anādimatparam or anādi matparam and NOT as parambrahma. The reference to Dakṣiṇāmūrti Strotram [made by you] is spurious as it is not considered a text written by the same Adi Śaṅkarācārya.

Further, with compliments from Monier Williams dictionary; param has a variety of meanings that needn't mean ‘different’ such as, previous (in time), former, ancient, past, later, future, next following, succeeding, subsequent, final, last, exceeding (in number or degree) etc.

Independent of this weak mimāṁsā argument is the absurd claim that Brahman is one of a category, i.e. “Brahman means the categorical greatest”, which violates reason and all the Śruti’s declarations that Brahman is asaṅga (unattached), ekaṁ evādvitīyam brahma (one without a second), Ajaṁ advayaṁ (birthless and nondual) etc.

Shri Durgaprasad (to Swami): Swami, Micheal Chandra claims to be an Advaita follower but the views expressed by him above appear to be suspect and they certainly do not seem to be in line with the Śruti or the Advaita philosophy as given by Śaṅkara. Could You kindly clarify.]

Swami replied: The word Brahman means either i) general relative awareness, which is a part of imaginable creation that is generated by the conversion of imaginable inert energy in functioning imaginable nervous system (proved as per science) called Jiiva or ii) the unimaginable God beyond this imaginable world, who is called absolute unimaginable awareness, which generates all this creation without any change in it. This is not Jiiva since it existed even before the creation of inert energy and materialized nervous system (energy and matter). Jiiva is generated from food (Annat purushah… Veda). Jiiva is referred as Paraaprakruti and Prakruti means creation as per the Gita. The Gita clearly says that awareness is a part of creation (Prakrutim viddhi me paraam, Chetanaa dhrutih). Now, the confusion comes that whether Brahman means imaginable Jiiva or the unimaginable God. Brahman means greatest (Bruhi vruddhau is the root word) item in a category and is used for several greatest items limited to specific categories. The Veda, food, life, mind, intelligence, bliss etc., are called Brahman, which are greatest in their specific categories. Among all the imaginable created items, Jiiva is greatest and can be called Brahman (Jiivo Brahmaiva—Shankara).

But, the first Brahma Sutra says about the enquiry of Brahman and here the word Brahman means unimaginable God since the second Sutra doesn’t reveal the nature (Svaruupalakshanam) of Brahman directly and says indirectly that Brahman is that which, created this world (Tatasthalakshanam), which clearly means that Brahman referred here is unimaginable. If Brahman is imaginable, directly its nature should have been told in the second Sutra. Later on, in another Sutra it is told that the Brahman referred in first Sutra is not Jiiva (Netaronupapatteh). This contradicts Shankara, who says that Brahman is Jiiva. How to reconcile this contradiction?—We must understand that the word Brahman used in the Veda and the Gita for several greatest items is also used for Jiiva and also for the unimaginable God. This confusion is valid because Jiiva is greatest in all the imaginable created items and unimaginable God, who is greater than Jiiva is also greatest among all the created items. But, you can’t speak that unimaginable God is greatest among all the created items because unimaginable God is not the created item whereas Jiiva is a created item. Therefore, it is correct to say that Jiiva is Brahman in the category of all the created items.

Unimaginable God is also greatest, in fact, absolutely greatest because He is greater than Jiiva. Both must be differentiated since God is unimaginable creator and Jiiva is imaginable part of imaginable creation called Prakruti. For this differentiation, Jiiva is called Brahman whereas God is called Parabrahman. Parabrahman means different from Brahman since Para means ‘different’ also apart from its meaning ‘great’. Brahman already means greatest and if you take Para to mean great, the word ‘Parabrahman’ means great greatest and this is absurd. Hence, we have to take Para to mean different only. Shankara Himself differentiated imaginable Jiiva called Brahman (Jiivobrahmaiva) from unimaginable God called Parabrahman (Maunavyaakhyaaprakatita Parabrahma…).

Jiiva is greatest among the category of created items and hence, can be called as Brahman. Here if you take Brahman as Parabrahman, such Jiiva is not ordinary human being, but, human incarnation. All this argument is logically perfect and hence, both Vyaasa (author of the Brahma Sutras) and Shankara are perfectly correct. First you must discuss any point whether it is logically correct or not and then only say that it is told by God, if it is correct. Kalidasa told that a scholar will analyse both old and new and follow whichever is correct whereas a blind fool follows either old or new only without any analysis (Puraanamityeva…).You shall not say that since this is told by God, this must be correct and then try to defend it by defective logic. Have you directly seen God saying this statement? You have only seen the statement and shall say that it is told by God after discussing it through perfect logic. If such statement becomes wrong in perfect logic, say that it is not told by God, but, it is inserted by somebody in the scripture.

But, instead of this, people blindly try to prove that such wrong statement is also correct by applying wrong logic. This is called blind belief resulting in foolish rigidity. Did you record the Veda and commentary of Shankara through audio-video system? You have only got those scriptures in your hand after a very long time and such scriptures might have been polluted by insertions and deletions done by many ignorant scholars. Such polluted portions are always illogical and the original portions were told by God are always logical. You can differentiate the original from duplicate through intensive logical analysis only. That, it is logical is original and that which is illogical is polluted. Shankara never quotes scripture in the beginning. First, He presents the concept with logic and at the end only the scripture is quoted. In fact, scripture is not necessary and logically proved concept by itself is the absolute authority and is accepted even by followers of other religions and other languages.

Shankara also told that He alone is God (Shivah kevaloham). You may say “Shiva is Īśvara and not unimaginable God and hence, this means the difference between Ishwara and Jiiva, which is not the difference between unimaginable God and Jiiva”. What is the difference between unimaginable God and Īśvara? Unimaginable God merged with the first energetic medium having energetic body and energetic soul is called Īśvara. Īśvara also contains the same unimaginable nature and His body and soul are eternal. Unimaginable God is a naked person bathing in a closed bathroom. Īśvara is the same person wrapped by cloths after bath coming out of bathroom. Do you find any difference between the two states of the same person? Unimaginable God expressed Himself to the souls by clothing Himself with a medium. Hence, Shiva or Īśvara means the same unimaginable God expressed through energetic medium.

Parabrahman, which can also be called Brahman, is omniscient unimaginable awareness and in that case, there is no real difference between Brahman and Īśvara. Both Brahman and Īśvara are basically one and the same and both are omniscient and omnipotent. The omnipresence of God is not accepted in a physical sense because, in that case, the presence of God would have to be accepted even in sinners. God’s omnipresence is accepted only in an effective sense because God knows everything everywhere (omniscient) and He controls everything everywhere (omnipotent). Thus, it means that God is present everywhere in an effective sense. The individual soul or jīva knows only a little (alpajña) and is totally different from Brahman or Īśvara. The unimaginable God (Parabrahman or Brahman) associated with the first energetic form is called Īśvara. The form or medium is only a part of creation. The Creator is only the unimaginable God, ultimately. The individual soul is the relative awareness which is embedded in a small medium. The medium for the relative awareness can either be made of energy alone or of a combination of matter and energy. Both the relative awareness as well as the media, which contain the awareness, belong to creation alone. They do not become the Creator in any sense. The result is that Īśvara, who is the Parabrahman or Brahman associated with the first energetic form, is totally different from the individual soul embedded in small medium. The former is the Creator, while the latter is creation.

It is fully agreed that unimaginable God is not exactly Īśvara, if the insignificant and meaningless difference between a naked person during bath and the same person clothed after bath is also counted. Unimaginable God is not associated with any created medium while Īśvara is the same unimaginable God associated with a created medium. The difference is very superficial and need not be considered at all. It is like the difference between pure gold kept uncovered and the same gold wrapped in a cover. If you are speaking about the unimaginable God mediated by awareness, such mediated God is not Īśvara. Īśvara is the unimaginable God merged with an energetic body in which relative awareness also exists as a component. Associated medium covering an item is different from the same associated medium merged with the medium. In merged case, even this superficial difference disappears. Unimaginable God merged with relative awareness is called as absolute God by Śaṅkara. Since the unimaginable God merges with the medium perfectly, the medium itself, which is Īśvara, is called unimaginable God Himself. In the case of Īśvara, both His soul (relative awareness) and His energetic body became unimaginable God due to perfect merge with unimaginable God and hence, both are eternal. In the case of other energetic and human incarnations, the souls of media are only merged by Īśvara (instead of unimaginable God) and not the bodies.

Hence, in other incarnations, bodies need not be eternal, but, can be eternal also if unimaginable God or Īśvara wishes so. Even the association (called merge) of unimaginable God or Īśvara with the soul in other incarnations is with basic dualism (very very subtle beyond our imagination) and hence, the unimaginable God can withdraw from the soul also at any time. The unimaginable God can even withdraw from Īśvara also, but, never withdraws from Īśvara since this gross world is always continuing becoming subtle in dissolution existing in the eternal body of Īśvara. This ‘can withdraw from Īśvara’ and ‘never withdraws from Īśvara’ is the difference between Shankara and Ramanuja (Madhva also) and such difference is only hypothetical only and not real due to absence of implementation at any time in the future.

The unimaginable God may not also withdraw from the soul and such soul may continue as energetic incarnation after the death of the materialized body in the case of human incarnation. The energetic bodies of energetic incarnations do not undergo destruction and hence, the energetic incarnations continue without any damage even in dissolution of world and all these options depend on the will of unimaginable God called eternal Īśvara. In the case of Īśvara, the merge of unimaginable God is with perfect and eternal monism and hence, both soul and body are eternal and no trace of distinction exists except that the unimaginable God is without medium and Īśvara is the same unimaginable God perfectly merged with medium to become eternal. The body of the other incarnations may also become unimaginable God due to His merge for certain required occasion as in the case of lifting hill by the tender finger of Krishna. Finally, it all depends on the will of the unimaginable God called Īśvara regarding His continuation or withdrawal from soul or body or both. The soul of any incarnation is the product of merge of unimaginable awareness (unimaginable God) and itself, the imaginable awareness (soul) of the medium. The result of such merge is the soul becoming unimaginable God or unimaginable awareness called Īśvara. The unimaginable awareness, which is inherent of unimaginable God (In fact, both unimaginable God and unimaginable awareness are one and the same since two unimaginable items can’t co-exist.) is pure unimaginable awareness (unimaginable God before creation) only and not the product of merge of unimaginable awareness with imaginable awareness as in the case of first energetic incarnation or other subsequent incarnations. However, the original pure unimaginable awareness (existing before creation) is not at all different from the resulting product of soul becoming unimaginable awareness by merge with the unimaginable awareness since the basic dualism is beyond our imagination.

To be continued...

★ ★ ★ ★ ★