Shankaracharya says in the Brihadaranyaka 3.5.1 Bhashya:
सर्ववादिनामप्यपरिहार्यः परमार्थसंव्यवहारकृतो व्यवहारः
It means:
//All Philosophers must necessarily accept the premise involving the dual concepts of transcendental (Paramartha) and parlance (vyavahara).//
Madhvacharya in his Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya, after accepting the Paramarthika satya concept has also given an evidence from a text that admits that Vishnu alone is the Paramarthika entity:
यदुपादाय पूर्वस्तु भावो विकुरुते परम् ।
आदिरन्तो यतो यस्मिंस्तत् सत्यमभिधीयते ॥ १८ ॥
This is the Bhagavata verse for which Madhva comments citing a verse:
‘पारमार्थिकसत्यत्वं स्वातन्त्र्यमभिधीयते । तद्विष्णोरेव नान्यस्य तदन्येषां सदाऽस्तिता”॥ इति च ॥ यद्ब्रह्मोपादाय । पूर्वः प्रकृत्यादिः । आदिरन्तश्च यद्ब्रह्मणि यस्मात् तस्मात् तह्म परमार्थसत्यम् ॥ १८ ॥
Madhva has also quoted a verse for the idea of ‘Vyavaharika’ in the same Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya :
‘इच्छा ज्ञानं क्रिया चेति नित्याः शक्तय ईशितुः । स्वरूपभूता अपि तु भेदवद्व्यावहारिकाः”॥ इति प्रकाशसंहितावचनान्नित्यगृहीतशक्तित्वमेव ॥ १२ ॥
Distinct from paramarthika is the vyavaharika:
‘हरेरवयवैर्लोकाः सृष्टा इति विकल्पनम् । साक्षात्सत्यमतोऽन्यस्मात् व्यावहारिकमुच्यते”॥ इति मात्स्ये ॥३६॥
And his is a school that has agreed on two types of reality as: Swatantra (independent) and Paratantra (dependent).
As seen above, the independent reality is the Paramarthika Satyam which applies only to Vishnu.
Nirguna Brahman is the only Paramarthika, transcendental, reality in Advaita.
If the jiva and the world were to enjoy the same reality that is enjoyed by the independent Vishnu, there was no need for accepting another, of a lower grade, reality called paratantra (dependent).
Only in the Advaitic view, in the rope-snake example, does the imagined serpent have no independent reality; the deluded person superimposes/transfers the reality of the rope on to the serpent.
Many think that even the words Paramarthika – Vyavaharika are found only in Advaita. This article shows that such is not the case.
OM
