Śaṅkara’s Advaita: The Grand Non-Explanation

A critique of the apodictic Vedāntin who solved everything by declaring it unreal

By the druid Finn

1. Introduction: The Most Impressive System That Never Actually Explains Anything

Śaṅkara is widely praised as India’s greatest philosopher: a master synthesiser, logical genius, restoring the “true meaning” of the Upaniṣads.

But look closely and we find a pattern familiar from Bruno and Spinoza:

Śaṅkara’s system is a monumental, dazzling, apodictic assertion

— not a generative explanation.

He begins with verbal absolutes, arranges them into a scholastic hierarchy, declares the world a superimposition, and triumphantly concludes that only Brahman is real.

But at no point does he:

· define Brahman operationally,

· explain how identity arises,

· show how cognition works,

· account for emergence,

· or generate a single entity in the world he dismisses as “mere appearance.”

His system is a masterpiece of metaphysical rhetoric, but mechanically empty.

Just like Bruno.
Just like Spinoza.
Except with Sanskrit.

2. Śaṅkara’s Top-Down Method: Declare First, Argue Later

Śaṅkara’s entire project is built backwards:

He does not infer Brahman.

He presupposes Brahman.

1. Premise: Brahman is the sole reality.

2. Premise: Brahman is attributeless (nirguṇa).

3. Premise: Brahman is changeless, birthless, partless, timeless.

4. Premise: The world must therefore be unreal (mithyā).

5. Premise: The Self is Brahman (identity axiom).

6. Conclusion: Everything except Brahman is illusion or ignorance.

This is not philosophy.
It is axiomatic theology.

Śaṅkara begins from the conclusion and shapes the entire world to fit it.

3. The Core Trick: Adhyāsa (Superimposition) as a Blank Cheque

Śaṅkara’s system rests on his famous theory of adhyāsa:

The world is superimposed upon Brahman, like a snake on a rope.

This analogy does the entire metaphysical job:

· multiplicity → superimposition

· change → superimposition

· time → superimposition

· perception → superimposition

· bodies → superimposition

· suffering → superimposition

· ignorance → superimposition

Anything the system cannot explain is simply declared an illusion projected by ignorance.

Adhyāsa ≈ “World-Soul” in Bruno

≈ “Modes of substance” in Spinoza
≈ “Fudge word” in Finn’s vocabulary.

In each case, the unexplained is covered with a vocabulary of transcendental convenience.

4. Brahman: The Ultimate Undefined Primitive

Śaṅkara defines Brahman entirely by negation:

· not this, not that (neti neti)

· no qualities

· no attributes

· no distinctions

· no form

· no internal structure

· no external relations

This leads to a catastrophic contradiction:

A definition by total negation yields no content — so nothing can be inferred from it.

If Brahman has no attributes, no distinctions, and no structure, then:

· it cannot be causally related to the world,

· it cannot be the ground of anything,

· it cannot even be spoken of without violating Śaṅkara’s own rules.

Śaṅkara solves this by inventing:

· āgama (scriptural authority)

· adhyāropa–apavāda (superimpose, then withdraw)

· vyāvahārika vs paramārthika (empirical vs ultimate levels)

These are rhetorical devices, not philosophical solutions.

He maintains Brahman as an undefined metaphysical anchor, identical to:

· Bruno’s infinite matter,

· Spinoza’s substance.

It is a word with no operational meaning.

5. The Two-Level Reality Trick: Epistemology Masquerading as Ontology

Śaṅkara’s most famous move is the two levels of reality:

1. Paramārthika (absolute): only Brahman is real

2. Vyāvahārika (empirical): the world appears through ignorance

This structure protects the system from falsification:

· If the world contradicts Advaita → “empirical error.”

· If scriptures contradict reason → “higher truth.”

· If diversity persists → “ignorance.”

· If liberation requires effort → “apparent effort.”

Śaṅkara constructs an ontology that cannot fail, because he can always shift disagreeable facts to the lower level.

This is not philosophy.
It is metaphysical immunisation.

6. No Generativity: Śaṅkara Explains Nothing About Becoming

Śaṅkara’s monism is non-generative at every level.

6.1 No explanation of how the One becomes the Many

He says:

· Brahman does not transform

· Brahman does not change

· Brahman cannot have parts

· Brahman cannot produce plurality

So why does multiplicity appear?

“Ignorance.”

This is a pseudo-cause, a metaphysical placeholder.

6.2 No explanation of matter, mass, form

Śaṅkara classifies all physical reality as:

· nāma-rūpa (name and form)

· mithyā (neither real nor unreal)

· a projection of māyā

This offers zero generative account of:

· physical structure

· material identity

· biological form

· cognitive emergence

· causal interaction

Matter is simply “apparent.”
Mass is “apparent.”
Bodies are “apparent.”
Even causation is “apparent.”

Śaṅkara drains the world of all ontological questions by declaring the world ontologically irrelevant.

6.3 The Potato Test (again)

Give Śaṅkara a potato.

He will say:

“Its name and form belong to ignorance; only the witnessing Self is real.”

Ask how it is generated:

“Ignorance makes it appear.”

Ask why it weighs 180g:

“Weight is a superimposed attribute.”

Ask what mass is:

“An empirical assumption.”

Śaṅkara’s world is a conceptual screensaver: appearances dancing on the surface of an undefinable absolute.

7. Śaṅkara’s System as Scholiastic Construction

Śaṅkara is not doing philosophy in our sense.
He is doing exegetical metaphysics:

· commentary on scripture,

· harmonisation of contradictions,

· systematisation of inherited Upaniṣadic terms.

His method is:

1. Scriptural assertion

2. Logical reinterpretation

3. Hierarchising of reality

4. Elimination of contradiction via two-tier ontology

5. Negative definition of the ultimate

6. Dismissal of the empirical as ignorance

This is not inquiry.
It is scholastic architecture.

A cathedral of words built on axioms that are never examined.

Śaṅkara is a genius of verbal structure, not of generative explanation.

8. Comparison with Procedure Monism

Question	Śaṅkara (Advaita)	Procedure Monism (Finn)
What is the minimal unit?	None; world is illusory	quantised action
How does identity arise?	Ignorance projects multiplicity	bounded interactions stabilise identity
How does matter form?	nāma-rūpa (no generative account)	confined action produces mass
How is realness produced?	Brahman alone is real	collisions at c create realness
How is the One related to the Many?	Superimposition, illusion	iteration produces emergents
Is the empirical world ontologically real?	No (mithyā)	Yes, as generated output
Is the system falsifiable?	No (two levels protect it)	Yes, because procedural

Śaṅkara explains nothing because he sees no world worth explaining.
Finn explains everything because his world is produced, not explained away.

9. The Core Critique: Śaṅkara’s Advaita “Proves” Nothing

Śaṅkara’s system claims to demonstrate:

· Brahman is real

· World is unreal

· Self is Brahman

· Liberation is recognition of this fact

In fact, he proves none of these.
He merely asserts them and protects them with rhetorical shielding.

His logic is circular:

1. Brahman must be non-dual →

2. Therefore the world must be illusory →

3. Therefore multiplicity cannot be real →

4. Therefore only Brahman remains →

5. Therefore Brahman is non-dual.

Śaṅkara calls this “reason.”
A logician calls this “a theological Möbius strip.”

10. Conclusion: The Vedāntin Who Subtracted Reality to Save It

Śaṅkara’s Advaita is a magnificent edifice built on:

· verbal absolutism,

· negative definitions,

· hierarchical ontology,

· untestable metaphysical claims.

Its brilliance lies in its architecture;
its failure lies in its non-generativity.

He answers the question “What is real?” by deleting the world.

In contrast, Finn’s Procedure Monism answers “What is real?” by showing how realness is made — from discrete events, bounded action, iterative emergence.

Śaṅkara’s Brahman explains nothing.
Finn’s quantum of action explains everything the world contains.

Śaṅkara brings transcendence inside the world by wiping the world out.
Finn brings explanation inside the world by constructing the world from units and procedures.

One is a cathedral of words.
The other is an engine.

And only one can ever explain
why there is a potato.

The non-generative monisms of Bruno and Spinoza

A comparative critique of non-generative and generative monisms

Finn versus Shankara

Home