Reappraisal of Degrees of Reality in Jainism, Buddhism and Vedānta
Summary
This article by Y. S. Shastri examines the doctrine of degrees of reality across Jainism, Buddhism, and Advaita Vedānta, arguing that this distinction between the transcendental and empirical orders of reality originates in the early Upanisads and was later adopted by these other philosophical systems. The author traces the Upanisadic foundations, citing the Katha Upanisad and the Mundaka Upanisad to illustrate the two paths of *sreyas* and *preyas*, and the distinction between *para* and *apara* vidya. The Upanisadic view establishes that the empirical world is transient, while the formless, eternal Brahman or Atman represents the ultimate, transcendental truth. In Jainism, the distinction manifests as *Vyavahāra* (the empirical or partial viewpoint) and *Niscaya* (the transcendental or complete viewpoint). The author notes that early Jaina texts like the Bhagavati Sutra establish this partial and complete knowledge, but it is the thinker Kundakunda who systematically applies these terms to the soul. For Kundakunda, the empirical self is bound by karmic materials and worldly experiences, whereas the transcendental self is the pure, unconditioned soul (*paramartha*), free from all predicates and dualities. In Buddhism, the distinction appears as conventional (*sammuti*) and ultimate (*paramartha*) truth in Hinayana, and as empirical (*samvrti*) and absolute (*paramartha*) truth in Mahayana. The author details Nagarjuna’s doctrine of two truths, where *samvrti* is a covering illusion and *paramartha* is the non-dual, indescribable absolute. Asanga and Vasubandhu further refine this into a three-tiered reality: *parikalpita* (purely imaginary), *paratantra* (dependent or relative), and *parinispanna* (absolute or perfectly established truth), which equates to Nirvana. In Advaita Vedānta, as expounded by Sankara, the doctrine reconciles contradictory Upanisadic statements and establishes three orders of reality: *pratibhasika* (illusory, like seeing a snake in a rope), *vyavaharika* (empirical, the waking world), and *paramarthika* (transcendental, the non-dual Brahman). Sankara argues that the empirical world is pragmatically real but ultimately sublated by the absolute realization of Brahman, which is beyond all subject-object duality and empirical activities. Ultimately, the author concludes that despite variations in terminology and specific metaphysical claims—such as the Jain belief in a plurality of eternal souls or the Buddhist view that the phenomenal world is an aspect of the absolute—all these systems share a common intellectual current. They all posit a lower, empirical reality that serves as a necessary stepping stone to be transcended in favor of a higher, intuitive, and non-dual mystical experience.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
The article establishes that the doctrine of degrees of reality is a foundational concept shared across the Upanisads, Jainism, Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta. Its key finding is that while the terminology varies, the underlying distinction between a transcendental, ultimate truth (paramartha) and an empirical, practical reality (vyavahara) remains consistent. The implications of this shared framework are significant: it allows these diverse philosophical systems to reconcile seemingly contradictory scriptural statements and to structure a progressive path of spiritual development. By distinguishing between lower and higher orders of reality, these thinkers provide a coherent epistemological and ontological model that validates everyday experience while ultimately pointing toward a non-dual, ineffable absolute. The significance of this reappraisal lies in demonstrating a continuous current of thought in Indian philosophy, challenging claims of direct borrowing between traditions and instead highlighting a common, profound intellectual heritage rooted in Upanisadic wisdom.