(Friend Subodh is interested to have discussions on certain Vedantic concepts. The following is some musings on one of the subjects he put forth - "Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya.)

"Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya" is one the most famous and often quoted aphorisms of Adi Shankaracharya, the exponent of Advaita (nondual) philosophy. It appears in the introductory  part of his exposition (Bhashya) on Brahma Sutra of Ved Vyasa, a fundamental text in Vedantic philosophy. Actually the statement does not end there but goes on to proclaim that "Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah". The purport will be incomplete without the second part. These 3 short clauses together sums up the advaitic principles as taught by Shankara.

The simple meaning of these Sanskrit words are thus : The absolute alone is real; the world is non-real; the individual being is not different from the absolute being.

Meaning and context of these cryptic words are very important to understand the great ideas expressed here. We need to know the correct perspective of the terms real, unreal and non-real. What is the absolute being and what is the individual being?

First of all, let's analyse what reality is. In our day to day life, cognition is considered  the proof of reality. If we can perceive or sense something it is treated as real (of course exceptions are there). Where as in spiritual terminology a thing is real which exist by itself(independent), always, in all conditions, never undergoing a constitutional change.

If you consider a table, it is real from our ordinary sense. But from philosophical view,  table is a modification of wood and cannot exist not being wood. Where as wood can exist not being a table. Table is a superimposition of a form on top of wood. The wood is re-formed into a table. Thus table has no existence apart from the fundamental reality called wood.

But is the table unreal? Obviously not. We can see it and feel it and utilize it. Calling it unreal would be outrageous. If it is neither real and nor unreal what is it then? That's where a new term come into play . Non-Real! Non-real is something which appears to exist but does not exist independently. You may call it a kind of illusion (Mithya). It is there, but it is not there. The table is there by virtue of wood and it is not there without being wood.

So the statement "Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya" actually indicate that what is really real is the Absolute alone and the world is just a superimposition of names and forms on that.

That's better now. At least it is not as bad as it looked in the beginning.  But how can we relate the Absolute to the world as we did wood to the table? It is pretty clear that the table is wood. How can we say that the world is the Absolute?

Reviewing the characteristics of reality we can see that the real must not undergo any constitutional change. Which means that what we call as the Absolute must be existing naturally in it's most fundamental indivisible elementary state which acts as the basic building blocks for the entire creation to come into existence in various forms and names.  The absolute in it's pristine pure state (before constructed into names and  forms) must be a homogenous substance and indivisible further in to finer constituent elements. Looking from the other end, what it imply is that the entire creation of names and forms are subjected to be reduced in succession to this fundamental single element at the end. Which we call the absolute.

Let's take the wooden table again for further analysis. We had concluded that the wood is relatively real compared to the form of the table. Now, is wood really real? It can not be. Because, it doesn't  stay as wood forever and in all conditions. Burn it - it turns to ashes. The wood is gone! What remains now is carbon. So, wood which was basically Hydrocarbon, loses it's form and name when disintegrated into constituent elements. And wood goes out of the good books of reality.

Now, are the elements like Carbon, Hydrogen etc. ultimately real? The scientists say they can be further divided into electrons, protons, neutrons and sub-nuclear particles. These particles themselves are same in all atoms of elements recorded and not recorded in the periodic table, the combinations will vary though.

For a long long time the scientists believed that these particles are the fundamental building blocks of  the entire universe. Later on their views began to change when more and more secrets were revealed. Now they have conceded, in theory at least, that there could be a subtle, homogenous,  fundamental substance which may be the basic essence of everything. Many concepts are evolving in this regard like quantum, strings, quarks and more. But one thing is certain. The deeper one goes, the subtler it gets.  And sooner or later they have to give up their external research and turn inward, towards one's own self. The great seers had done the same thing eons back and revealed some great secrets which in scientists view are gross imagination.

While the scientists struggle with their research let's come back to our investigation. What we have seen so far is that according to the Vedantic theory, if we dig deep enough we will hit the rock bottom reality, the Absolute, as the underlying final constituent aspect of all that exists. The world that we see is merely formation and naming of  this fundamental reality. With respect to the reality of the Absolute, the observable world is an illusion - a named appearance.

What is the nature of this absolute reality? How does the world of such diversity emerge from this homogenous absolute principle? Who is the carpenter who chisels out such a marvelous world out from this vast wood of reality? Questions are many. Need more space and time to get deep into these queries. We will conclude for the time being after probing on the second part of the aphorism that "the individual being is not different from the absolute being"

The essence of this statement is that the microcosm is just as the macrocosm is. An individual is a part and parcel of the absolute being and has no separate existence. As an extension it can be said that "I am That". But the true sense of "I" and "That" must be realized before announcing  so.

In Vedantic parlance an individual is a constricted sense of self bound by limiting adjuncts (Upaadhi). The Upadhi is the body(gross-subtle-causal). To explain it more, let's take the common example of a pot dipped in the ocean. There is water inside and there is water out side. The water inside is never separate or different from the ocean. But has been limited by the shape of the pot and can be named pot-water. When the limiting factor of the pot is broken, the pot-water merges back to the ocean-water. The naming and apparent separation was just a convention. There was no time when pot-water was not ocean-water.

Also, assume the pot is dipped up to the brim and the sun is reflected within the pot-water. Now we have a small sun shining out of the limited pot water. This can be equated with the reflected consciousness operating in a body/mind organism giving it a limited sense of  "self" shining as the ego. Break the pot and the sun is gone. Where did the sun in the pot go? There never was sun in the pot in the first place. Just an illusory phenomenon of reflection appeared as long as the limiting adjuncts were appearing. That's all.  Really speaking, the actual self is the absolute itself and the fake self(ego) never exists.

Let's sum up what we have analysed so far. According to Vedanta,  the world that we cognize is nothing but superimpositions of names and forms on a homogenous, indivisible absolute principle. The individual being is nothing but the absolute being apparently limited by some Upadhis and mistakenly identified as a separate entity.