text:
Advaita Vedanta
|Part of a series on
Classical Advaita vedanta
Kashmir Shaivism
Classical Advaita Vedanta
Advaita Vedanta
Kashmir Shaivism
Inchegeri Sampradaya
Ramana Maharshi
Tradional Advaita Vedanta
Modern Advaita Vedanta
Monasteries and Orders
Classical Advaita Vedanta
Modern Advaita Vedanta
|Part of a series on
Advaita Vedanta[note 1] is the oldest extant sub-school of Vedanta,[note 2] an ancient Hindu tradition of scriptural exegesis[note 3] and religious practice,[web 1] and the best-known school of advaita, the nonduality of Atman and Brahman or the Absolute. It gives "a unifying interpretation of the whole body of Upanishads",[1] providing scriptural authority for the postulation of the nonduality of Atman and Brahman.
Advaita (not-two in Sanskrit) refers to the recognition that the true Self, Atman, which is pure consciousness[note 4], is the same as the highest Reality, Brahman, which is also pure consciousness.[2] [note 5] [note 6] Followers seek liberation/release by acquiring vidyā (knowledge)[3] of the identity of Atman and Brahman. Attaining this liberation takes a long preparation and training under the guidance of a guru. Advaita thought can also be found in non-orthodox Indian religious traditions, such as the tantric Nath tradition.
The principal, though not the first, exponent of the Advaita Vedanta-interpretation was Shankara Bhagavadpada[4] in the 8th century, who systematised the works of preceding philosophers.[5] Its teachings have influenced various sects of Hinduism.[6]
The key source texts for all schools of Vedānta are the Prasthanatrayi, the canonical texts consisting of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras, of which they give a philosophical interpretation and elucidation.[1]
Advaita Vedanta developed in a multi-faceted religious and philosophical landscape. The tradition developed in interaction with the other traditions of India, "Jainism, Buddhism, Vaishnavism and Shaivism, as well as the other schools of Vedanta.
In modern times, due to western Orientalism and Perennialism, and its influence on Indian Neo-Vedanta and Hindu nationalism,[7] Advaita Vedanta has acquired a broad acceptance in Indian culture and beyond as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality,[7] despite the wide popularity of the Shaivite Vishishtadvaita and Dvaitadvaita bhakti traditions, and incorporating teachers such as Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj despite their eclectic and tantric backgrounds.
- 1 Moksha – liberation through knowledge of Brahman
- 2 Texts
- 3 Philosophy
- 3.1 Ontology – The nature of being
- 3.2 Epistemology – Ways of knowing
- 4 History of Advaita Vedanta
- 4.1 Pre-Shankara Vedanta
- 4.2 Gaudapada
- 4.3 Adi Shankara
- 4.4 Sureśvara and Maṇḍana Miśra
- 4.5 Advaita Vedanta sub-schools
- 4.6 later Advaita Vedanta tradition
- 5 Sampradaya
- 6 Influence on modern Hinduism
- 7 Relationship with other forms of Vedanta
- 8 Relationship with Mahayana Buddhism
- 9 Status of ethics
- 10 See also
- 11 Notes
- 12 References
- 13 Sources
- 14 Further reading
- 15 External links
Moksha – liberation through knowledge of Brahman[edit]
Traditional Advaita Vedanta centers around the study and correct understanding of the sruti, revealed texts, especially the Upanishads.[8][9] Correct understanding provides knowledge of the identity of atman and Brahman, which results in liberation. The main texts to be studied are the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. Correct knowledge is obtained by following the four stages of samanyasa (self-cultivation), sravana, listening to the teachings of the sages, manana, reflection on the teachings, and svādhyāya, contemplation of the truth "that art Thou". Practice is also needed to "destroy one's tendencies (vAasanA-s)" before real insight can be attained.[web 2]
Svādhyāya and anubhava - understanding the texts[edit]
Sruti, revealed texts, and proper reasoning, are the main sources of knowledge for Shankara and the subsequent Advaita Vedanta tradition.[10][11] Correct knowledge of Brahman can be acquired by svādhyāya,[12] study of the self and of the Veda, and nididhyāsana, prolonged study of and contemplation on the truths revealed in the sruti[13] and contemplation of non-duality.[14]
Nididhyasana leads to anubhava, direct cognition or understanding, which establishes the truth of the sruti.[15] Shankara holds anubhava to be a pramana, an independent source of knowledge which is provided by nididhyasana.[16] According to Comans, Shankara uses anubhava interchangeably with pratipatta, "understanding".[web 3] Davis translates anubhava as "direct intuitive understanding".[17] According to Hirst, anubhava is the "non-dual realisation gained from the scriptures", which "provides the sanctionp and paradigm for proper reasoning", when interpreted by a self-realized Advaitin teacher.[18] This "knowledge of Brahman, is identical with that self which is to be known as witness, not as object".[18]
Modern interpretators have recast anubhava as "personal experience", in line with Unitarian and Theosophical influences.[19] Yet, anubhava does not center around some sort of "mystical experience," but around the correct knowledge of Brahman.[11] Anantanand Rambachan quotes several modern interpretators in defence of this interpretation, especially Radakrishnan,[19] but nevertheless makes clear that sruti is the main source of knowledge for Shankara.[10] Swami Dayananda notes that anubhava has a more specific meaning than its conventional meaning of "experience", namely "direct knowledge". Dayananda explains that interpreting anubahva as "experience" may lead to a misunderstanding of Advaita Vedanta, and a mistaken rejection of the study of the scriptures as mere intellectual understanding. Stressing the meaning of anubhava as knowledge, Saraswati argues that liberation comes from knowledge, not from mere experience.[web 3] Saraswati points out that "the experience of the self ... can never come because consciousness is ever-present, in and through each and every experience."[web 4] And Swami Nikhalananda notes that (knowledge of) Atman and Brahman can only be reached by buddhi, "reason,"[20] stating that mysticism is a kind of intuitive knowledge, while buddhi is the highest means of attaining knowledge.[21]
Moksha - liberation[edit]
Correct knowledge of Brahman results in liberation,[note 7] by knowledge of the identity of atman and Brahman. knowledge of Brahman destroys Maya, the illusory appreances which cover the Real, Brahman. When Maya is removed, the truth of "Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah" is realised:[web 5]
Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.[web 5]
Liberation can be achieved while living, and is called Jivanmukta.[22]
Identity of Atman and Brahman[edit]
- See also Jnana, Prajna and Prajñānam Brahma
Moksha is attained by realizing the identity of Atman and Brahman. According to Potter,
8. The true Self is itself just that pure consciousness, without which nothing can be known in any way.
9. And that same true Self, pure consciousness, is not different from the ultimate world Principle, Brahman ...
11. ... Brahman (=the true Self, pure consciousness) is the only Reality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublimatable.[2]
"Pure consciousness" is the translation of jnanam.[23] Although the common translation of jnanam[23] is "consciousness", the term has a broader meaning of "knowing"; "becoming acquainted with",[web 6] "knowledge about anything",[web 6] "awareness",[web 6] "higher knowledge".[web 6]
"Brahman" too has a broader meaning than "pure consciousness". According to Paul Deussen,[24] Brahman is:
- Satyam, "the true reality, which, however, is not the empirical one
- Jñãnam, "Knowledge which, however, is not split into the subject and the object"
- anantam, "boundless or infinite"
According to David Loy,
The knowledge of Brahman ... is not intuition of Brahman but itself is Brahman.[25]
The same nuance can be found in satcitananda, the qualities of Brahman, which are usually translated as "Eternal Bliss Consciousness",[26] "Absolute Bliss Consciousness",[web 7] or "Consisting of existence and thought and joy".[web 8] Satcitananda is composed of three Sanskrit words:
- sat सत् (present participle); [Sanskrit root as, "to be"]:[citation needed] "Truth",[note 8] "Absolute Being",[web 7] "a palpable force of virtue and truth".[27] Sat describes an essence that is pure and timeless, that never changes.[web 7]
- cit चित् (noun): "consciousness",[web 7] "true consciousness",[citation needed] "to be consciousness of",[28] "to understand",[28] "to comprehend".[28]
- ānanda आनन्द (noun): "bliss",[web 7] "true bliss",[citation needed] "happiness",[web 9] "joy",[web 9] "delight",[web 9] "pleasure"[web 9]
This knowledge is intuitive knowledge, a spontaneous type of knowing[29][note 9], as rendered in the prefix pra of prajnanam Brahman.
Mahavakya – The Great Sentences[edit]
The Mahavakya, or "the great sentences", remind us of the unity of Brahman and Atman,[citation needed] or "the inner immortal self and the great cosmic power are one and the same".[30] There are many such sentences in the Vedas, however only one such sentence from each of the four Vedas is usually chosen.
|Sr. No.
|प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म (pragñānam brahma)
|Prajñānam[note 10] is Brahman[note 11]
|Aitareya V.3
|अहं ब्रह्मास्मि (aham brahmāsmi)
|I am Brahman, or I am Divine[31]
|Brhadāranyaka I.4.10
|Shukla Yajurveda
|तत्त्वमसि (tat tvam asi)
|That thou art
|Chandogya VI.8.7
|अयमात्मा ब्रह्म (ayamātmā brahma)
|This Atman is Brahman
|Mandukya II
Stages and practices[edit]
Advaita Vedanta gives an elaborate path to attain moksha. It entails more than self-inquiry or bare insight into one's real nature. Practice, especially Jnana Yoga, is also needed to "destroy one's tendencies (vAasanA-s)" before real insight can be attained.[web 2][note 12]
Jnana Yoga – Four stages of practice[edit]
Classical Advaita Vedanta emphasises the path of Jnana Yoga, a progression of study and training to attain moksha. It consists of four stages:[32][web 10]
- Samanyasa or Sampattis,[33] the "fourfold discipline" (sādhana-catustaya), cultivating the following four qualities:[32][web 10]
- Nityānitya vastu viveka (नित्यानित्य वस्तु विवेकम्) — The ability (viveka) to correctly discriminate between the eternal (nitya) substance (Brahman) and the substance that is transitory existence (anitya).
- Ihāmutrārtha phala bhoga virāga (इहाऽमुत्रार्थ फल भोगविरागम्) — The renunciation (virāga) of enjoyments of objects (artha phala bhoga) in this world (iha) and the other worlds (amutra) like heaven etc.
- Śamādi ṣatka sampatti (शमादि षट्क सम्पत्ति) — the sixfold qualities,
- Śama (control of the antahkaraṇa).[web 11]
- Dama (the control of external sense organs).
- Uparati (the cessation of these external organs so restrained, from the pursuit of objects other than that, or it may mean the abandonment of the prescribed works according to scriptural injunctions).[note 13]
- Titikṣa (the tolerating of tāpatraya).
- Śraddhā (the faith in Guru and Vedas).
- Samādhāna (the concentrating of the mind on God and Guru).
- Mumukṣutva (मुमुक्षुत्वम्) — The firm conviction that the nature of the world is misery and the intense longing for moksha (release from the cycle of births and deaths).
- Sravana, listening to the teachings of the sages on the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta, and studying the Vedantic texts, such as the Brahma Sutras. In this stage the student learns about the reality of Brahman and the identity of atman;
- Manana, the stage of reflection on the teachings;
- Nididhyāsana, the stage of meditation on the truth "that art Thou".[web 10][web 12]
While Shankara emphasized sravana ("hearing"), manana ("reflection") and nididhyasana ("repeated meditation"), later texts like the Dŗg-Dŗśya-Viveka (14th century) and Vedantasara (of Sadananda) (15th century) added samadhi as a means to liberation, a theme that was also emphasized by Swami Vivekananda.
Bhakti Yoga and Karma Yoga[edit]
Bhakti Yoga and Karma Yoga can be employed as subsidiary practices to the understanding of the sruti. In Bhakti Yoga, practice centres on the worship God in any way and in any form, like Krishna or Ayyappa. Adi Shankara himself was a proponent of devotional worship or Bhakti. But Adi Shankara taught that while Vedic sacrifices, puja and devotional worship can lead one in the direction of jnana (true knowledge), they cannot lead one directly to moksha. At best, they can serve as means to obtain moksha via shukla gati.[citation needed] Karma yoga is the way of doing our duties, in disregard of personal gains or losses.[note 14]
Necessity of a Guru[edit]
According to Śankara and others, anyone seeking to attain moksha must do so under the guidance of a Guru (teacher).[note 15] It is the teacher who through exegesis of Sruti and skilful handling of words generates a hitherto unknown knowledge in the disciple. The teacher does not merely provide stimulus or suggestion.[34]
The Guru must have the following qualities:[note 16]
- Śrotriya — must be learned in the Vedic scriptures and Sampradaya
- Brahmaniṣṭhā — literally meaning 'established in Brahman'; must have realised the oneness of Brahman in everything, and in himself/herself.
The seeker must serve the Guru, and submit questions with all humility in order to remove all doubts (see Bhagavad Gita 4.34). By doing so, Advaita says, the seeker will attain Moksha ('liberation from the cycle of births and deaths').
Advaita Vedanta is based on the inquiry into the sacred texts of the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. Adi Shankara gave a systematisation and philosophical underpinning of this inquiry in his commentaries. The subsequent Advaita-tradition has further elaborated on these sruti and commentaries.
Prasthānatrayī – Three standards[edit]
Adi Sankara has chosen[citation needed] three standards, called Prasthānatrayī, literally, three points of departure (three standards). Later these were referred to as the three canonical texts of reference of Hindu philosophy by other Vedanta schools.
They are:
- The Upanishads, known as Upadesha prasthāna (injunctive texts), (part of Śruti)
- The Bhagavad Gita, known as Sādhana prasthāna (practical text), (part of Smṛti)
- The Brahma Sutras, known as Nyāya prasthāna or Yukti prasthana (part of darśana of Uttarā Mīmāṃsā)
The Upanishads consist of twelve or thirteen major texts, with many minor texts. The Bhagavad Gītā is part of the Mahabhārata. The Brahma Sūtras (also known as the Vedānta Sūtras), systematise the doctrines taught in the Upanishads and the Gītā.
Sankara Bhagavadpāda has written Bhāshyas (commentaries) on the Prasthānatrayī. These texts are thus considered to be the basic texts of the Advaita-parampara.
The order of precedance regarding authority of Vedic Scriptures is as follows,
- Śruti, literally "hearing, listening", are the sacred texts comprising the central canon of Hinduism and is one of the three main sources of dharma and therefore is also influential within Hindu Law.[35]
- Smṛti, literally "that which is remembered (or recollected)", refers to a specific body of Hindu scripture, and is a codified component of Hindu customary law. Post Vedic scriptures such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and traditions of the rules on dharma such as Manu Smriti, Yaagnyavalkya Smriti etc. Smrti also denotes tradition in the sense that it portrays the traditions of the rules on dharma, especially those of lawful virtuous persons.)
- Purāṇa, literally "of ancient times", are post-vedic scriptures notably consisting of narratives of the history of the universe from creation to destruction, genealogies of kings, heroes, sages, and demigods, and descriptions of Hindu cosmology, philosophy, and geography.[web 13]
- Śiṣṭāchāra, literally "that which is followed by good (in recent times)".
- Atmatuṣṭi, literally "that which satisfies oneself (or self validation)", according to which one has to decide whether or not to do with bona fide. Initially this was not considered in the order of precedence but Manu and Yājñavalkya considered it as last one.
If anyone of them contradicts the preceding one, then it is disqualified as an authority to judge. There is a well known Indian saying that Smṛti follows Śruti. So it was considered that in order to establish any Theistic Philosophical theory (Astika Siddhanta) one ought not contradict Śruti (Vedas).
Additionally there are four Siddhi-granthas that are taught in the Advaita-parampara, after study of the Prasthana-trayi:
- Brahmasiddhi by Mandana Mishra (750–850),
- Naishkarmasiddhi by Sureswara (8th century, disciple of Sankara),
- Ishtasiddhi by Vimuktananda (1200),
- Advaita Siddhi,[web 14] written by Madhusudana Saraswati - 1565-1665.
Introductory texts[edit]
Introductory texts from the Advaita Vedanta tradition include:
- Ashtavakra Samhita (pre-Sankara), with traces of Advaitism.[note 17]
- Tattvabodha (Shankara), an introductory text explaining the terminologies used in Advaita Vedanta.[note 18]
- Atma bodha, A Treatise on the knowledge of Atma (Shankara).[note 19]
- Vedantasara (of Sadananda) (Bhagavad Ramanuja, 1017 to 1137 A.D.[web 15])[note 20]
- Vakyavrtti
- Laghu-Vakyavrtti
- Dŗg-Dŗśya-Viveka
- Panchikaranam
- Vedanta-Paribhasha (of Dharmaraja Adhvarindra)
- Advaita-Makaranda (of Lakshmidhara Kavi)
- Aparoksha-Anubhuti
- Dakshinamurthy Stotram
- Panchadasi (of Vidyaranya)
- Kaupina-pancakam
- Sadhana-panchakam
- Manisha-pancakam
- Dasasloki
- Advaita Bodha Deepika
The Advaita Vedanta gives an explanation and interpretation of the sacred texts of the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. Adi Shankara's commentaries have become central texts in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, but are not the only interpretations available or accepted in this tradition.
Ontology – The nature of being[edit]
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.
Advaita Vedanta is a so-called substance ontology, an ontology "which holds that underlying the seeming change, variety, and multiplicity of existence there are unchanging and permanent entities (the so-called substances)".[36] In contrast, Buddhism is a process ontology, according to which "there exists nothing permanent and unchanging, within or without man".[37][note 21]
Three Levels of Reality[edit]
Advaita took over from the Madhyamika the idea of levels of reality.[38] Usually two levels are being mentioned,[39] but Shankara uses sublation as the criterion to postulate an ontological hierarchy of three levels:[40][web 16]
- Pāramārthika (paramartha, absolute), the absolute level, "which is absolutely real and into which both other reality levels can be resolved".[web 16] This experience can't be sublated by any other experience.[40]
- Vyāvahārika (vyavahara), or samvriti-saya[39] (empirical or pragmatical), "our world of experience, the phenomenal world that we handle every day when we are awake".[web 16] It is the level in which both jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Iswara are true; here, the material world is also true.
- Prāthibhāsika (pratibhasika, apparent reality, unreality), "reality based on imagination alone".[web 16] It is the level in which appearances are actually false, like the illusion of a snake over a rope, or a dream.
Absolute Reality[edit]
Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth".[41] It is
the true Self, pure consciousness ... the only Reality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable".[2]
"Brahman" has a broader meaning than "pure consciousness". According to Paul Deussen,[24] Brahman is:
- Satyam, "the true reality, which, however, is not the empirical one"
- Jñãnam, "Knowledge which, however, is not split into the subject and the object"
- anantam, "boundless or infinite"
Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are maya. Brahman is absolute reality, unborn and unchanging.[citation needed] According to Advaita Vedanta, consciousness is not a property of Brahman but its very nature. In this respect Advaita Vedanta differs from other Vedanta schools.[web 17]
Brahman is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable. Brahman is indescribable. It is at best Satchidananda, Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss.
Brahman is free from any kind of differences or differentiation. It does not have any sajātīya (homogeneous) differentiation because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijātīya (heterogeneous) differentiation because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.
Brahman is often described as neti neti, "not this, not this" since Brahman cannot be correctly described as this or that.
Ātman (IAST: ātman, Sanskrit: आत्मन्) is a Sanskrit word that means 'self'. Ātman is the first principle,[42] the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual.
"Ātman" (Atma, आत्मा, आत्मन्) is a Sanskrit word which means "essence, breath, soul." It is related to Proto-Indo-European *etmen, a root found in Sanskrit and German and which means "breath", and in Ancient Greek ἀτμός, atmòs "vapor", like in atmosphere.[43][note 22]
Empirical reality[edit]
According to Adi Shankara, Māyā (/mɑːjɑː/) is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Māyā, just as a magician is not tricked by his own magic.[citation needed]
All sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Māyā. Māyā is neither completely real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Māyā is temporary and is transcended with "true knowledge", or perception of the more fundamental reality which permeates Māyā.[citation needed]
Māyā has two main functions:[citation needed]
- To "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception,
- To present the material world in its (Brahmam) place.
The world is unreal and real[edit]
The world is both unreal and real. but something can't be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. Adi Sankara says that the world is not real (true), it is an illusion.[web 18][note 23] Adi Sankara also claims that the world is not absolutely unreal (false). It appears unreal (false) only when compared to Brahman. At the empirical or pragmatic level, the world is completely real.[44][note 24]
The world being both unreal and real is explained by the following. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.[citation needed]
Due to ignorance (avidyā), Brahman is perceived as the material world and its objects (nama rupa vikara). According to Shankara, Brahman is in reality attributeless and formless. Brahman, the highest truth and all (reality), does not really change; it is only our ignorance that gives the appearance of change. Also due to avidyā, the true identity is forgotten, and material reality, which manifests at various levels, is mistaken as the only and true reality.
The notion of avidyā and its relationship to Brahman creates a crucial philosophical issue within Advaita Vedanta thought: how can avidyā appear in Brahman, since Brahman is pure consciousness?[45]
Sengaku Mayeda writes, in his commentary and translation of Adi Shankara's Upadesasahasri:
Certainly the most crucial problem which Sankara left for his followers is that of avidyā. If the concept is logically analysed, it would lead the Vedanta philosophy toward dualism or nihilism and uproot its fundamental position.[46]
Subsequent Advaitins gave somewhat various explanations, from which various Advaita schools arose.
Due to avidya, atman is covered by sheaths, or bodies, which hide man's true nature. According to the Taittiriya Upanishad, the Atman is covered by five koshas, usually rendered "sheath".[web 19] They are often visualised like the layers of an onion.[47] From gross to fine the five sheets are:
- Annamaya kosha, food-apparent-sheath
- Pranamaya kosha, air-apparent-sheath
- Manomaya kosha, mind-stuff-apparent-sheath
- Vijnanamaya kosha, wisdom-apparent-sheath
- Anandamaya kosha, bliss-apparent-sheath (Ananda)
According to Vedanta the wise man should discriminate between the self and the koshas, which are non-self.
Avasthåtraya – Three states of consciousness[edit]
Adi Shankara discerned three states of consciousness, based on the Mandukya Upanishad, namely waking (jågrat), dreaming (svapna), and deep sleep (suƒupti),[web 20][web 21] which correspond to the three bodies,[48] another formulation of the five koshas:
- The first state is the waking state, in which we are aware of our daily world. "It is described as outward-knowing (bahish-prajnya), gross (sthula) and universal (vaishvanara)".[web 21] This is the gross body.
- The second state is the dreaming mind. "It is described as inward-knowing (antah-prajnya), subtle (pravivikta) and burning (taijasa)".[web 21] This is the subtle body.
- The third state is the state of deep sleep. In this state the underlying ground of concsiousness is undistracted, "the Lord of all (sarv'-eshvara), the knower of all (sarva-jnya), the inner controller (antar-yami), the source of all (yonih sarvasya), the origin and dissolution of created things (prabhav'-apyayau hi bhutanam)".[web 21] This is the causal body.
Turiya, pure consciousness is the background that underlies and transcends the three common states of consciousness.[web 22][web 23] In this consciousness both absolute and relative, Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman, are transcended.[49] It is the true state of experience of the infinite (ananta) and non-different (advaita/abheda), free from the dualistic experience which results from the attempts to conceptualise ( vipalka) reality.[50] It is the state in which ajativada, non-origination, is apprehended.[50]
Epistemology – Ways of knowing[edit]
Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistēmē), meaning "knowledge, understanding", and λόγος (logos), meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.
Pramāṇas – Correct knowledge[edit]
Pramāna, (sources of knowledge, Sanskrit प्रमाण), refers to the correct knowledge, arrived at by thorough reasoning, of any object.
Pramātṛ, Pramāṇa and Prameya[edit]
Pramāṇa forms one part of a tripuṭi (trio), namely,
- Pramātṛ, the subject; the knower of the knowledge
- Pramāṇa, the cause or the means of the knowledge
- Prameya, the object of knowledge
Six pramāṇas[edit]
In Advaita Vedānta,[51] as in the Bhāṭṭa school of Mimāṃsā, the following pramāṇas are accepted:
- Pratyakṣa (perception), the knowledge gained by means of the senses. That which is immediately perceived to be so; This knowledge can be corrected, e.g. if one perceives a piece of rope to be a snake.
- Anumāna (inference), the knowledge gained by means of inference. That which is perceived as true through previous knowledge, e.g. to knows that it is a fire because smoke can be seen in the sky (the two are related through a universal law)
- Śabda (verbal testimony), the knowledge gained by means of texts such as Vedas (also known as Āptavākya, Śabda pramāṇa)
- Upamāna (comparison), the knowledge gained by means of analogy or comparison. That which is perceived as true since it compares to previous, confirmed, knowledge. To know that something is something, e.g. a cat, because one has seen cats before.
- Arthāpatti (postulation), the knowledge gained by superimposing the known knowledge on an appearing knowledge that does not concur with the known knowledge. I.e. To see someone gain weight while knowing they are fasting, imposes the knowledge that the person is secretly eating.
- Anupaladbhi (negation), the knowledge gained through the absence of the object. That which is true through a negation. Classic e.g. karatale ghato nasti – the pot is not on the palm. The pot could be elsewhere. So the place (on the palm) of its absence is also important.
Perception, inference and verbal testimony have the same meaning as in the Nyaya-school. Regarding comparison, postulation and non-cognition Advaita Vedanta views which somewhat differ from the Nyaya-school.[51]
Criterion of sublation[edit]
Sublation is replacement of a "truth" by a higher "truth", until no higher truth can be found. Shankara uses sublatibility as the criterion for the ontological status of any content of consciousness:[52]
Sublition is essentially the mental process of correcting and rectifying errors of judgement. Thus one is said to sublate a previous held judgment when, in the light of a new experience which contradicts it, one either regards the judgment as false or disvalues it in some significant sense ... Not only judgment but also concepts, objects, relations, and in general any content of consciousness can be sublated.[53]
History of Advaita Vedanta[edit]
Advaita Vedanta existed prior to Shankara, but found its most influential expounder in Shankara.[54]
Pre-Shankara Vedanta[edit]
Of the Vedanta-school before the composition of the Brahma Sutras (400–450 CE[55]) almost nothing is known.[55] Very little also is known of the period between the Brahmansutras and Shankara (first half of the 8th century CE).[55] Only two writings of this period have survived: the Vākyapadīya, written by Bhartṛhari (second half 5th century[56]), and the Māndūkya-kārikā written by Gaudapada (7th century CE).[55]
Earliest Vedanta[edit]
The Upanishads form the basic texts, of which Vedanta gives an interpretation.[57] The Upanishads don't contain "a rigorous philosophical inquiry identifying the doctrines and formulating the supporting arguments".[58][note 25] This philosophical inquiry was performed by the darsanas, the various philosophical schools.[59] Deutsch and Dalvi point out that in the Indian context texts "are only part of a tradition which is preserved in its purest form in the oral transmission as it has been going on."[60]
The Upanishads originated in the Sramana movements, renunciate ascetic traditions which gave birth to Yoga,[61] Jainism, Buddhism,[62] and some nāstika schools of Hinduism such as Cārvāka and Ājīvika, and also popular concepts in all major Indian religions such as saṃsāra (the cycle of birth and death) and moksha (liberation from that cycle).[63][note 26] The various traditions interacted with each other, and cannot be seen as completely separate developments.[64] Buddhism, favored and supported by merchants and royals,[65] developed elaborate philosophical and pedagogical texts and systems early in its history. Early in the first millennium Madhyamaka and Yogacara developed ideas about the two levels of truth and the working of the mind[66] to which the developing Vedanta-tradition responded, but also incorporated these systems.[67] Buddhist influence can also be found in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, written c. 4th century CE.[68][69]
Bādarāyana's Brahma Sutras[edit]
The Brahma Sutras of Bādarāyana, also called the Vedanta Sutra,[70] were compiled in its present form around 400–450 CE,[71] but "the great part of the Sutra must have been in existence much earlier than that".[71] Estimates of the date of Bādarāyana's lifetime differ between 200 BCE and 200 CE.[72]
The Brahma Sutra is a critical study of the teachings of the Upanishads. It was and is a guide-book for the great teachers of the Vedantic systems.[70] Bādarāyana was not the first person to systematise the teachings of the Upanishads.[73] He refers to seven Vedantic teachers before him:[73]
From the way in which Bādarāyana cites the views of others it is obvious that the teachings of the Upanishads must have been analyzed and interpreted by quite a few before him and that his systematization of them in 555 sutras arranged in four chapters must have been the last attempt, most probably the best.[73]
Between BrahmaSutras and Shankara[edit]
According to Nakamura, "there must have been an enormous number of other writings turned out in this period, but unfortunately all of them have been scattered or lost and have not come down to us today".[55] In his commentaries, Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his Sampradaya.[74] In the beginning of his commentary on the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Shankara salutes the teachers of the Brahmavidya Sampradaya.[web 24] Pre-Shankara doctrines and sayings can be traced in the works of the later schools, which does give insight into the development of early Vedanta philosophy.[55]
The names of various important early Vedanta thinkers have been listed in the Siddhitraya by Yamunācārya (c.1050), the Vedārthasamgraha by Rāmānuja (c.1050–1157), and the Yatīndramatadīpikā by Śrīnivāsa-dāsa.[55] Combined together,[55] at least fourteen thinkers are known to have existed between the composition of the Brahman Sutras and Shankara's lifetime.[55][note 27]
Although Shankara is often considered to be the founder of the Advaita Vedanta school, according to Nakamura, comparison of the known teachings of these early Vedantins and Shankara's thought shows that most of the characteristics of Shankara's thought "were advocated by someone before Śankara".[75] Shankara "was the person who synthesized the Advaita-vāda which had previously existed before him".[75] In this synthesis, he was the rejuvenator and defender of ancient learning.[76] He was an unequalled commentator,[76] due to whose efforts and contributions the Advaita Vedanta assumed a dominant position within Indian philosophy.[76]
Gaudapada (6th century)[77] was the teacher of Govinda Bhagavatpada and the grandteacher of Shankara.
Māṇḍukya Kārikā[edit]
Gaudapada wrote or compiled[78] the Māṇḍukya Kārikā, also known as the Gauḍapāda Kārikā and as the Āgama Śāstra.[note 28] The Māṇḍukya Kārikā is a commentary in verse form on the Mandukya Upanishad, one of the shortest but most profound Upanishads, or mystical Vedas, consisting of just 13 prose sentences. In Shankara's time it was considered to be a Śruti, but not particularly important.[79] In later periods it acquired a higher status, and eventually it was regarded as expressing the essence of the Upanisad philosophy.[79]
The Māṇḍukya Kārikā is the earliest extent systematic treatise on Advaita Vedānta,[80] though it is not the oldest work to present Advaita views,[4] nor the only pre-Sankara work with the same type of teachings.[4]
Buddhist influences[edit]
According to B.N.K. Sharma, the early commentators on the Brahma Sutras were all realists,[81] or pantheist realists.[82] During the same period, the 2nd-5th century CE, there was a great idealist revival in Buddhism, which countered the criticisms of the Hindu realists.[83] The works of Buddhist thinkers like Nagasena, Buddhaghosa and Nagarjuna, all of them Brahmin converts to Buddhism,[83] "created a great sensation and compelled admiration all around".[83] Other Brahmins, faithful to Brahminism but equally impressed by these developments in Buddhist thought, looked for and found in some portions of the Upanishads "many striking approaches to the metaphysical idealism of the Buddhists".[83] During the 5th and 6th centuries there was a further development of Buddhist thought with the development of the Yogacara school.[84]
It was Gaudapada who further bridged Buddhism and Vedanta.[84] He took over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra)[77][note 29] and "that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation".[77][note 30] Gaudapada "wove [both doctrines] into a philosophy of the Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara".[85][note 31] At the same time, Gaudapada emphatically rejected the epistemic idealism of the Buddhists, arguing that there was a difference between objects seen in dreams and real objects in the world, although both were ultimately unreal. He also rejected the pluralism and momentariness of consciousnesses, which were core doctrines of the Vijnanavada school, and their techniques for achieving liberation.[86]
Gaudapada also took over the Buddhist concept of "ajāta" from Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy,[87][88] which uses the term "anutpāda".[89] [note 32] "Ajātivāda", "the Doctrine of no-origination"[90][note 33] or non-creation, is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada.[90]
Richard King has noted that Ajativada has a radically different meaning in the context of respectively Vedanta and Buddhism. Buddhist writers take Ajativada to imply that there are no essences in factors, and therefore change is possible. Gaudapada made the opposite interpretation, advocating the absolutist position that origination and cessation were unreal, the only Ultimate reality (Brahman) being unoriginated and unchanging.[91]
According to Gaudapada, the Absolute is not subject to birth, change and death. The Absolute is aja, the unborn eternal.[90] The empirical world of appearances is considered unreal, and not absolutely existent.[90]
Shri Gaudapadacharya Math[edit]
Around 740 AD Gaudapada founded Shri Gaudapadacharya Math[note 34], also known as Kavaḷē maṭha. It is located in Kavale, Ponda, Goa,[web 25] and is the oldest matha of the South Indian Saraswat Brahmins.[92][web 26]
Unlike other mathas, Shri Gaudapadacharya matha is not a polemical center established to influence the faith of all Hindus, its jurisdiction is limited to only Dakshinatya Saraswat Brahmins.
Adi Shankara[edit]
Adi Shankara (788–820), also known as Śaṅkara Bhagavatpādācārya and Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, synthesised and rejuvenated the doctrine of Advaita.[76] It was Shankara who succeeded in reading Gaudapada's mayavada[93][note 35] into Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, "and give it a locus classicus",[93] against the realistic strain of the Brahma Sutras.[93][note 36][note 37] His interpretation, including works ascribed to him, has become the normative interpretation of Advaita Vedanta.[94][93]
Historical context[edit]
- See also Late-Classical Age and Hinduism Middle Ages
Shankara lived in the time of the so-called "Late classical Hinduism",[95] which lasted from 650 till 1100 CE.[95][note 38] After the end of the Gupta Empire and the collapse of the Harsha Empire, power became decentralised in India. Rural and devotional movements arose, along with Shaivism, Vaisnavism, Bhakti and Tantra.[96] Buddhism, which was supported by the ancient Indian urban civilisation lost influence to the traditional religions,[96] but at the same time, was incorporated into Hinduism, when Gaudapada used Buddhist philosophy to reinterpret the Upanishads.[97]
Philosophical system[edit]
This also marked a shift from Atman and Brahman as a "living substance"[98] to "maya-vada"[note 35], where Atman and Brahman are seen as "pure knowledge-consciousness".[99] Shankara systematised the works of preceding philosophers,[5] marking this turn from realism to idealism.[93][98] Shankara's synthesis of Advaita Vedanta is summarised in this quote from the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, one of his Prakaraṇa graṃthas (philosophical treatises):[note 39]
In half a couplet I state, what has been stated by scores of texts;
that is Brahman alone is real, the world is mithyā (not independently existent),
and the individual self is nondifferent from Brahman.[100][note 40]
According to Sringeri Math, Shankara's message can be summarised even shorter:
The eternal, impersonal, consciousness Absolute is the Brahman, the one without a second.[web 27]
Adi Shankara's main works are his commentaries on the Prasthana Trayi, which consist of the Brahma Sūtras, Bhagavad Gītā and the Upanishads. According to Nakamura, Shankara's Brahma-sūtra-bhāsya, his commentary on the Brahma Sūtra, is "the most authoritative and best known work in the Vedānta philosophy".[101] Shankara also wrote a major independent treatise, called "Upadeśa Sāhasrī", expounding his philosophy.
The authenticity of the "Vivekachudamani", a well-known work ascribed to Shankara, is doubtful,[102][103][104] though it is "so closely interwoven into the spiritual heritage of Shankara that any analysis of his perspective which fails to consider [this work] would be incomplete".[102][note 41]
The authorship of Shankara of his Mandukya Upanishad Bhasya and his supplementary commentary on Gaudapada's Māṇḍukya Kārikā is also disputed.[105][note 42]
Influence of Shankara[edit]
Shankara has an unparallelled status in the tradition of Advaita Vedanta. He provided an orthodox hermeneutical basis for heterodox Buddhist phenomology,[106][93] and has been called the "St. Thomas Aquinas of Indian thought"[107] and "the most brilliant personality in the history of Indian thought."[108]
His teachings and tradition form the basis of Smartism and have influenced Sant Mat lineages.[109] He introduced the Pañcāyatana form of worship, the simultaneous worship of five deities - Ganesha, Surya, Vishnu, Shiva and Devi. Shankara explained that all deities were but different forms of the one Brahman, the invisible Supreme Being.[110]
Yet, according to Richard E. King,
Although it is common to find Western scholars and Hindus arguing that Sankaracarya was the most influential and important figure in the history of Hindu intellectual thought, this does not seem to be justified by the historical evidence.[111]
According to King and Roodurnum, until the 10th century Sankara was overshadowed by his older contemporary Mandana-Misra. In the centuries after Sankara it was Maṇḍana Miśra who was considered to be the most important representative of Vedanta,[112][113] and in the later medieaval period his teachings were overshadowed by Visista-Advaita.[114]
Prior to Shankara, views similar to his already existed, but did not occupy a dominant position within the Vedanta,[115] being restricted to a select elite. The early Vedanta scholars were from the upper classes of society, well-educated in traditional culture. They formed a social elite, "sharply distinguished from the general practitioners and theologians of Hinduism."[116] Their teachings were "transmitted among a small number of selected intellectuals".[116] Works of the early Vedanta schools do not contain references to Vishnu or Shiva.[117] It was only after Shankara that "the theologians of the various sects of Hinduism utilized Vedanta philosophy to a greater or lesser degree to form the basis of their doctrines,"[6] for example the Nath-tradition,[118] whereby "its theoretical influence upon the whole of Indian society became final and definitive." [116]
Sureśvara and Maṇḍana Miśra[edit]
Sureśvara (fl. 800-900 CE)[119] and Maṇḍana Miśra were contemporaries of Shankara, Sureśvara often (incorrectly) being identified with Maṇḍana Miśra.[120] Both explained Sankara "on the basis of their personal convictions."[120] Sureśvara has also been credited as the founder of a pre-Shankara branch of Advaita Vedanta.[119]
Maṇḍana Miśra was a Mimamsa scholar and a follower of Kumarila, but who also wrote a work on Advaita, the Brahma-siddhi.[121] According to tradition, Maṇḍana Miśra and his wife were defeated by Shankara in a debate, where-after he became a follower of Shankara.[121] Yet, his attitude toward Shankara is that of a "self-confident rival teacher of Advaita,"[122] and his influence was such, that some regard this work to have "set forth a non-Sankaran brand of Advaita."[121] The "theory of error" set forth in the Brahma-siddhi became the normative Advaita Vedanta theory of error.[123] It was Vachaspati Misra's commentary on this work which linked it up with Shankara's teaching.[124]
Hiriyanna and Kuppuswami Sastra have pointed out that Sureśvara and Maṇḍana Miśra had different views on various doctrinal points:[125]
- The locus of avidya:[125] according to Maṇḍana Miśra, the individual jiva is the locus of avidya, whereas Suresvara contents that avidya regarding Brahman is located in Brahman.[125] These two different stances are also reflected in the opposing positions of the Bhamati school and the Vivarana school.[125]
- Liberation: according to Maṇḍana Miśra, the knowledge which arises from the Mahavakya is insufficient for liberation. Only the direct realization of Brahma is liberating, which can only be attained by meditation.[126] According to Suresvara, this knowledge is directly liberating, while meditation is at best a useful aid.[122][note 43]
Advaita Vedanta sub-schools[edit]
After Shankara's death several subschools developed. Two of them still exist today, the Bhāmatī and the Vivarana.[web 28][74] Perished schools are the Pancapadika and Istasiddhi, which were replaced by Prakasatman's Vivarana-school.[127]
These schools worked out the logical implications of various Advaita doctrines. Two of the problems they encountered were the further interpretations to the concepts of māyā and avidya.[web 28]
Padmapada - Pancapadika school[edit]
Padmapada (c. 800 CE)[128] was a direct disciple of Shankara, who wrote the Pancapadika, a commentary on the Sankara-bhaya.[128] Padmapada diverted from Shankara in his description of avidya, designating prakrti as avidya or ajnana.[129]
Vachaspati Misra - Bhamati school[edit]
Vachaspati Misra (c.800-900 CE)[130] wrote the Brahmatattva-samiksa, a commentary on Maṇḍana Miśra's Brahma-siddhi, which provides the link between Mandana Misra and Shankara,[124] attempting to harmonise Sankara's thought with that of Mandana Misra.[web 28] According to Advaita tradition, Shankara reincarnated as Vachaspati Misra "to popularise the Advaita System through his Bhamati."[130] Only two works are known of Vachaspati Misra, the Brahmatattva-samiksa on Maṇḍana Miśra's Brahma-siddhi, and his Bhamati on the Sankara-bhasya, Shankara's commentary on the Brahma-sutras.[124] The name of the Bhamati-subschool is derived from this Bhamati.[web 28][web 29] According to legend, Misra's commentary was named after his wife to praise her, since he neglected her during the writing of his commentary.[web 29]
The Bhamati-school takes an ontological approach. It sees the Jiva as the source of avidya.[web 28] It sees meditation as the main factor in the acquirement of liberation, while the study of the Vedas and reflection are additional factors.[131]
Prakasatman - Vivarana school[edit]
Prakasatman (c.1200-1300)[127] wrote the Pancapadika-Vivarana, a commentary on the Pancapadika by Padmapadacharya.[127] The Vivarana lends its name to the subsequent school. According to Roodurmum, "his line of thought [...] became the leitmotif of all subsequent developments in the evolution of the Advaita tradition."[127]
The Vivarana-school takes an epistemological approach. Prakasatman was the first to propound the theory of mulavidya or maya as being of "positive beginningless nature",[132] and sees Brahman as the source of avidya. Critics object that Brahman is pure consciousness, so it can't be the source of avidya. Another problem is that contradictory qualities, namely knowledge and ignorance, are attributed to Brahman.[web 28]
Vimuktatman - Ista-Siddhi[edit]
Vimuktatman (c.1200 CE)[133] wrote the Ista-siddhi.[133] It is one of the four traditional siddhi, together with Mandana's Brahma-siddhi, Suresvara's Naiskarmya-siddhi, and Madusudana's Advaita-siddhi.[134] According to Vimuktatman, absolute reality is "pure intuitive consciousness."[135] His school of thought was eventually replaced by Prakasatman's Vivarana school.[127]
later Advaita Vedanta tradition[edit]
According to Sangeetha Menon, prominent names in the later Advaita tradition are:[web 30]
- Prakāsātman, Vimuktātman, Sarvajñātman (tenth century),
- Śrī Harṣa, Citsukha (twelfth century),
- ānandagiri, Amalānandā (thirteenth century),
- Vidyāraņya, Śaṅkarānandā (fourteenth century),
- Sadānandā (fifteenth century),
- Prakāṣānanda, Nṛsiṁhāśrama (sixteenth century),
- Madhusūdhana Sarasvati, Dharmarāja Advarindra, Appaya Dīkśita (seventeenth century),
- Sadaśiva Brahmendra (eighteenth century),
- Candraśekhara Bhārati (twentieth century), Sacchidānandendra Saraswati (twentieth century).
Contemporary teachers are the orthodox Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham; the more traditional teachers Sivananda Saraswati (1887–1963), Chinmayananda Saraswati,[web 31] and Dayananda Saraswati (Arsha Vidya);[web 31] and less traditional teachers like Narayana Guru.[web 31]
Advaita Mathas[edit]
Advaita Vedanta is, at least in the west, primarily known as a philosophical system. But it is also a tradition of renunciation. Philosophy and renunciation are closely related:[web 1]
Most of the notable authors in the advaita tradition were members of the sannyasa tradition, and both sides of the tradition share the same values, attitudes and metaphysics.[web 1]
Shankara, himself considered to be an incarnation of Shiva,[web 1] established the Dashanami Sampradaya, organizing a section of the Ekadandi monks under an umbrella grouping of ten names.[web 1] Several other Hindu monastic and Ekadandi traditions remained outside the organisation of the Dasanāmis.[136][137][138]
Adi Sankara is said to have organised the Hindu monks of these ten sects or names under four Maṭhas (Sanskrit: मठ) (monasteries), with the headquarters at Dvārakā in the West, Jagannatha Puri in the East, Sringeri in the South and Badrikashrama in the North.[web 1] Each math was headed by one of his four main disciples, who each continues the Vedanta Sampradaya.[note 44]
Monks of these ten orders differ in part in their beliefs and practices, and a section of them is not considered to be restricted to specific changes made by Shankara. While the dasanāmis associated with the Sankara maths follow the procedures enumerated by Adi Śankara, some of these orders remained partly or fully independent in their belief and practices; and outside the official control of the Sankara maths.
The advaita sampradaya is not a Saiva sect,[web 1][139] despite the historical links with Shaivism.[note 45] Nevertheless, contemporary Sankaracaryas have more influence among Saiva communities than among Vaisnava communities.[web 1] The greatest influence of the gurus of the advaita tradition has been among followers of the Smartha Tradition, who integrate the domestic Vedic ritual with devotional aspects of Hinduism.[web 1]
According to Nakamura, these mathas contributed to the influence of Shankara, which was "due to institutional factors".[5] The mathas which he built exist until today, and preserve the teachings and influence of Shankara, "while the writings of other scholars before him came to be forgotten with the passage of time".[140]
The table below gives an overview of the four Amnaya Mathas founded by Adi Shankara, and their details.[web 32]
|Govardhana Pīṭhaṃ
|Prajñānam brahma (Consciousness is Brahman)
|Rig Veda
|Sringeri Śārada Pīṭhaṃ
|Aham brahmāsmi (I am Brahman)
|Yajur Veda
|Dvāraka Pīṭhaṃ
|Tattvamasi (That thou art)
|Sama Veda
|Jyotirmaṭha Pīṭhaṃ
|Ayamātmā brahma (This Atman is Brahman)
|Atharva Veda
According to the tradition in Kerala, after Sankara's samadhi at Vadakkunnathan Temple, his disciples founded four mathas in Thrissur, namely Naduvil Madhom, Thekke Madhom, Idayil Madhom and Vadakke Madhom.
Smarta Tradition[edit]
Traditionally, Shankara is regarded as the greatest teacher[141][142] and reformer of the Smartha.[143][142] According to Alf Hiltebeitel, Shankara established the nondualist interpretation of the Upanishads as the touchstone of a revived smarta tradition:
Practically, Shankara fostered a rapprochement between Advaita and smarta orthodoxy, which by his time had not only continued to defend the varnasramadharma theory as defining the path of karman, but had developed the practice of pancayatanapuja ("five-shrine worship") as a solution to varied and conflicting devotional practices. Thus one could worship any one of five deities (Vishnu, Siva, Durga, Surya, Ganesa) as one's istadevata ("deity of choice").[144]
The Sringeri monastery is still the centre of the Smarta sect.[141][142] In recent times bhakti cults have increasingly become popular with the smartas,[145] and Shiva is particularly favored.[141] In modern times Smarta-views have been highly influential in both the Indian[web 33] and western[web 34] understanding of Hinduism via Neo-Vedanta. Vivekananda was an advocate of Smarta-views,[web 34] and Radhakrishnan was himself a Smarta-Brahman.[146][147][note 46]
Influence on modern Hinduism[edit]
Unifying Hinduism[edit]
Advaita Vedanta came to occupy a central position in the classification of various Hindu traditions. With the onset of Islamic rule, hierarchical classifications of the various orthodox schools were developed to defend Hinduism against Islamic influences.[148] According to Nicholson, already between the twelfth and the sixteenth century,
... certain thinkers began to treat as a single whole the diverse philosophical teachings of the Upanishads, epics, Puranas, and the schools known retrospectively as the "six systems" (saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy.[149]
The tendency of "a blurring of philosophical distinctions" has also been noted by Burley.[150] Lorenzen locates the origins of a distinct Hindu identity in the interaction between Muslims and Hindus,[151] and a process of "mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim other",[152] which started well before 1800.[153] Both the Indian and the European thinkers who developed the term "Hinduism" in the 19th century were influenced by these philosophers.[149]
Within these socalled doxologies Advaita Vedanta was given the highest position, since it was regarded to be most inclusive system.[148] Vijnanabhiksu, a 16th-century philosopher and writer, is still an influential representant of these doxologies. He's been a prime influence on 19th century Hindu modernists like Vivekananda, who also tried to integrate various strands of Hindu thought, taking Advaita Vedanta as its most representative specimen.[148]
Contemporary popularization[edit]
Indian nationalism and Hindu Universalism[edit]
With the onset of the British Raj, the colonialisation of India by the British, there also started a Hindu renaissance in the 19th century, which profoundly changed the understanding of Hinduism in both India and the west.[7] Western orientalist searched for the "essence" of the Indian religions, discerning this in the Vedas,[154] and meanwhile creating the notion of "Hinduism" as a unified body of religious praxis[155] and the popular picture of 'mystical India'.[155][7] This idea of a Vedic essence was taken over by the Hindu reformers, together with the ideas of Universalism and Perennialism, the idea that all religions share a common mystic ground.[156] The Brahmo Samaj, who was supported for a while by the Unitarian Church,[157] played an essential role in the introduction and spread of this new understanding of Hinduism.[158]
Vedanta came to be regarded as the essence of Hinduism, and Advaita Vedanta came to be regarded as "then paradigmatic example of the mystical nature of the Hindu religion".[159] These notions served well for the Hindu nationalists, who further popularised this notion of Advaita Vedanta as the pinnacle of Indian religions.[160] It "provided an opportunity for the construction of a nationalist ideology that could unite HIndus in their struggle against colonial oppression".[161]
A major proponent in the popularisation of this Universalist and Perennialist interpretation of Advaita Vedanta was Vivekananda,[162] who played a major role in the revival of Hinduism,[163] and the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the west via the Ramakrishna Mission. His interpretation of Advaita Vedanta has been called "Neo-Vedanta".[164] Vivekananda discerned a universal religion, regarding all the apparent differences between various traditions as various manifestations of one truth.[165] He presented karma, bhakti, jnana and raja yoga as equal means to attain moksha,[166] to present Vedanta as a liberal and universal religion, in contrast to the exclusivism of other religions.[166]
Vivekananda emphasised samadhi as a means to attain liberation.[167] Yet this emphasis is not to be found in the Upanishads nor with Shankara.[168] For Shankara, meditation and Nirvikalpa Samadhi are means to gain knowledge of the already existing unity of Brahman and Atman,[167] not the highest goal itself:
[Y]oga is a meditative exercise of withdrawal from the particular and identification with the universal, leading to contemplation of oneself as the most universal, namely, Consciousness. This approach is different from the classical Yoga of complete thought suppression.[167]
He also claimed that Advaita is the only religion that is in total agreement with modern science. In a talk on "The absolute and manifestation" given in at London in 1896 Swami Vivekananda said,
I may make bold to say that the only religion which agrees with, and even goes a little further than modern researchers, both on physical and moral lines is the Advaita, and that is why it appeals to modern scientists so much. They find that the old dualistic theories are not enough for them, do not satisfy their necessities. A man must have not only faith, but intellectual faith too".[web 35]
Vivekenanda's modernisation has been criticised:
Without calling into question the right of any philosopher to interpret Advaita according to his own understanding of it, ... the process of Westernization has obscured the core of this school of thought. The basic correlation of renunciation and Bliss has been lost sight of in the attempts to underscore the cognitive structure and the realistic structure which according to Samkaracarya should both belong to, and indeed constitute the realm of māyā.[164]
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan[edit]
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan further popularized Advaita Vedanta, presenting it as the essence of Hinduism,[web 36] but neglecting the popular bhakti-traditions.[169] Radhakrishnan saw other religions, "including what Radhakrishnan understands as lower forms of Hinduism,"[web 36] as interpretations of Advaita Vedanta, thereby Hindusizing all religions.[web 36] His metaphysics was grounded in Advaita Vedanta, but he reinterpreted Advaita Vedanta for a contemporary understanding.[web 36] He acknowledged the reality and diversity of the world of experience, which he saw as grounded in and supported by the absolute or Brahman.[web 36][note 47] Radhakrishnan also reinterpreted Shankara's notion of maya. According to Radhakrishnan, maya is not a strict absolute idealism, but "a subjective misperception of the world as ultimately real."[web 36]
Neo-Advaita is a New Religious Movement based on a popularised, western interpretation of Advaita Vedanta and the teachings of Ramana Maharshi.[170] Neo-Advaita is being criticised[171][note 48][172][note 49][note 50] for discarding the traditional prerequisites of knowledge of the scriptures[173] and "renunciation as necessary preparation for the path of jnana-yoga".[173][174] Notable neo-advaita teachers are H. W. L. Poonja,[175][170] his students Gangaji[176] Andrew Cohen[note 51], and Eckhart Tolle.[170]
Advaita Vedanta has gained attention in western spirituality and New Age, where various traditions are seen as driven by the same non-dual experience.[177] Nonduality points to "a primordial, natural awareness without subject or object".[web 37] It is also used to refer to interconnectedness, "the sense that all things are interconnected and not separate, while at the same time all things retain their individuality".[web 38]
Georg Feuerstein is quoted by nonduality-adepts[note 52] as summarizing the Advaita Vedanta-realization as follows:
The manifold universe is, in truth, a Single Reality. There is only one Great Being, which the sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence reside. That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings."[web 39][note 53]
Relationship with other forms of Vedanta[edit]
The exposition and spread of Advaita by Sankara spurred debate with the two main theistic schools of Vedanta philosophy that were formalised later: Vishishtadvaita (qualified nondualism), and Dvaita (dualism).
Yamunacharya, a 10th-century AD proponent of the Vishishtadvaita philosophy that opposed Shankara's Advaita, compared Advaita to Buddhism and remarked in his Siddhitraya that for both the Buddhists and the Advaitins, the distinctions of knower, known and knowledge are unreal. The Advaita traces them to Maya, while Buddhist subjectivism traces them to buddhi.[178] Ramanujacharya, another prominent Vishishtadvaita philosopher, accused Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a hidden Buddhist[179]
The Dvaita, founded by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 AD), was partisan to Vaishnavism, building on a cogent system of Vedantic interpretation that proceeded to take on Advaita in full measure. Madhvacharya's student Narayana, in his Madhvavijaya, a hagiography of Madhva, characterised Madhva and Shankara as born-enemies, and describes Shankara as a "demon born on earth".[180] Surendranath Dasgupta noted that some Madhva mythology went so far as to characterise the followers of Shankara as "tyrannical people who burned down monasteries, destroyed cattle and killed women and children".[181]
Relationship with Mahayana Buddhism[edit]
Influence of Mahayana Buddhism[edit]
Many authorities from India and elsewhere have noted that Advaita Vedanta shows signs of influence from Mahayana Buddhism. The Mahayana schools with whom Shankara's Advaita is said to share similarities are the Madhyamaka, founded by Nagarjuna,[182] and the Yogacara,[183] founded by Vasubandhu[184] and Asanga[185] in the early centuries of the Common Era.
John Grimes writes that while Mahayana Buddhism's influence on Advaita Vedanta has been ignored for most of its history, scholars now see it as undeniable.[186]
Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi state:
In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some of the dialectical techniques, if not the specific doctrines, of the former.[187]
S. Mudgal noted that among some traditionalist Indian scholars, it was the accepted view that Shankara
Adopted practically all ... dialectic (of the Buddhists), their methodology, their arguments and analysis, their concepts, their terminologies and even their philosophy of the Absolute, gave all of them a Vedantic appearance, and demolished Buddhism ... Sankara embraced Buddhism, but it was a fatal embrace".[188]
This influence goes back at least to Gaudapada:
Gaudapada rather clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments are cast.[187]
Michael Comans has also demonstrated how Gaudapada, an early Vedantin, utilised some arguments and reasoning from Madhyamaka Buddhist texts by quoting them almost verbatim.
However, Comans believes there is a fundamental difference between Buddhist thought and that of Gaudapada, in that Buddhism has as its philosophical basis the doctrine of Dependent Origination, while Gaudapada does not at all rely on this principle. Gaudapada's Ajativada is an outcome of reasoning applied to an unchanging nondual reality, the fundamental teaching of the Upanishads.[189]
In India, the similarity of Shankara's Advaita to Buddhism was brought up by his rivals from other Vedanta schools, while on the other hand, Mahayanists such as Bhavyaviveka had to defend themselves from Theravada Buddhist accusations of the Mahayana doctrine being just another form of Vedantism.[190][note 54][191]
Shankara defended himself against these accusations:
Shankara's criticisms of Buddhism are nevertheless powerful and they exhibit clearly at least how Shankara saw the difference between Buddhism and his own Vedantic philosophy.[187]
Common core thesis[edit]
Western scholars like N.V. Isaeva state that the Advaita and Buddhist philosophies, after being purified of accidental or historical accretions, can be safely regarded as different expressions of the same eternal absolute truth.[192][note 55]
Ninian Smart, a historian of religion, noted that the differences between Shankara and Mahayana doctrines are largely a matter of emphasis and background, rather than essence.[193][note 56]
Status of ethics[edit]
Some claim that there is no place for ethics in Advaita, "that it turns its back on all theoretical and practical considerations of morality and, if not unethical, is at least 'a-ethical' in character".[194]
Ethics does have a firm place in this philosophy. Ethics, which implies doing good Karma, indirectly helps in attaining true knowledge.[195] Many Advaitins consider Karma a "necessary fiction".[citation needed] Karma cannot be proven to exist through any of the Pramāṇas.[note 57] However, to encourage students to strive towards Vidyā (spiritual knowledge) and combat Avidyā (ignorance), the idea of Karma is maintained.
Truth, non-violence, service of others, pity, are Dharma, and lies, violence, cheating, selfishness, greed, are adharma (sin). However, no authoritative definition of Dharma was ever formulated by any of the major exponents of Advaita Vedanta. Unlike ontological and epistemological claims, there is room for significant disagreement between Advaitins on ethical issues.
See also[edit]
- ^ IAST Advaita Vedānta; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त [əd̪ʋait̪ə ʋeːd̪ɑːnt̪ə], literally, not-two
- ^ Literally: end or the goal of the Vedas.
- ^ C.q. Vedic[196][197][67][74] or Hindu philosophy[198]
- ^ Although the common translation of jnanam[23] is "consciousness", the term has a broader meaning of "knowing"; "becoming acquainted with",[web 6] "knowledge about anything",[web 6] "awareness",[web 6] "higher knowledge".[web 6] See also jnana, prajna and Prajñānam Brahma.
- ^ "Brahman" too has a broader meaning than "pure consciousness". According to Paul Deussen,[24] Brahman is:
- Satyam, "the true reality, which, however, is not the empirical one
- Jñãnam, "Knowledge which, however, is not split into the subject and the object"
- anantam, "boundless or infinite"
- ^ "Brahman" is not to be confused with Brahma, the Creator and one third of the Trimurti along with Shiva, the Destroyer and Vishnu, the Preserver.
- ^ Indian philosophy emphasises that "every acceptable philosophy should aid man in realising the Purusarthas, the chief aims of human life:[199]
- ^ "Sat is absolute non changing truth." –Maharishi Mahesh Yogi[web 7]
- ^ Compare Radhakrishnan's notion of "intuition". See [web 40][web 41][web 42]
- ^ "Consciousness",[201][web 43] "intelligence",[202][203] "wisdom"[web 44]
- ^ "the Absolute",[201][web 43] "infinite",[web 43] "the Highest truth"[web 43]
- ^ Puligandla: "Any philosophy worthy of its title should not be a mere intellectual exercise but should have practical application in enabling man to live an enlightened life. A philosophy which makes no difference to the quality and style of our life is no philosophy, but an empty intellectual construction."[204]
- ^ nivartitānāmeteṣāṁ tadvyatiriktaviṣayebhya uparamaṇamuparatirathavā vihitānāṁ karmaṇāṁ vidhinā parityāgaḥ[Vedāntasāra, 21]
- ^ Sri Swami Sivananda: "Karma Yoga is consecration of all actions and their fruits unto the Lord. Karma Yoga is performance of actions dwelling in union with the Divine, removing attachment and remaining balanced ever in success and failure. Karma Yoga is selfless service unto humanity. Karma Yoga is the Yoga of action which purifies the heart and prepares the Antahkarana (the heart and the mind) for the reception of Divine Light or attainment if Knowledge of the Self. The important point is that you will have to serve humanity without any attachment or egoism."[web 45]
- ^ Chāndogya Upanishad – ācāryavān puruşo veda. Also see the first prose chapter of Śankara's Upadeśasāhasrī.
- ^ See Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12
- ^ See also [web 46]
- ^ See also [web 47][web 48]
- ^ See also [web 49][web 50][web 51]
- ^ See also [web 52][web 53][web 54][web 55][web 15]
- ^ Kalupahana describes how in Buddhism there is also a current which favours substance ontology. Kalupahanan sees Madhyamaka and Yogacara as reactions against developments toward substance ontology in Buddhism.[205]
- ^ Cognates: Dutch adem, Old High German atum "breath," Old English eþian.[43]
- ^ Adi Sankara gives the following reasoning:[web 18]
- Whatever thing remains eternal is true, and whatever is non-eternal is untrue. Since the world is created and destroyed, it is not real (true).
- Truth is the thing which is unchanging. Since the world is changing, it is not real (false).
- Whatever is independent of space and time is real (true), and whatever has space and time in itself is not real (false).
- Just as one sees dreams in sleep, he sees a kind of super-dream when he is waking. The world is compared to this conscious dream.
- The world is believed to be a superimposition of the Brahman. Superimposition cannot be real (true).
- ^ Shankara gives the following reasoning:[44]
- If the world were unreal (false), then with the liberation of the first living being, the world would have been annihilated. However, the world continues to exist even if a living being attains liberation. But, it is possible that no living being attained the ultimate knowledge (liberation) till now.
- Adi Sankara believes in karma, or good actions. This is a feature of this world. So the world cannot be unreal (false).
- The Supreme Reality Brahman is the basis of this world. The world is like its reflection. Hence the world cannot be totally unreal (false).
- False is something which is ascribed to nonexistent things, like Sky-lotus. The world is a logical thing, a fact which is perceived by our senses and exists but is not the truth.
- ^ Nevertheless, Balasubramanian argues that since the basic ideas of the Vedanta systems are derived from the Vedas, the Vedantic philosophy is as old as the Vedas.[206]
- ^ Flood & Olivelle: "The second half of the first millennium BCE was the period that created many of the ideological and institutional elements that characterize later Indian religions. The renouncer tradition played a central role during this formative period of Indian religious history....Some of the fundamental values and beliefs that we generally associate with Indian religions in general and Hinduism in particular were in part the creation of the renouncer tradition. These include the two pillars of Indian theologies: samsara - the belief that life in this world is one of suffering and subject to repeated deaths and births (rebirth); moksa/nirvana - the goal of human existence....."[63]
- ^ Bhartŗhari (c.450–500), Upavarsa (c.450–500), Bodhāyana (c.500), Tanka (Brahmānandin) (c.500–550), Dravida (c.550), Bhartŗprapañca (c.550), Śabarasvāmin (c.550), Bhartŗmitra (c.550–600), Śrivatsānka (c.600), Sundarapāndya (c.600), Brahmadatta (c.600–700), Gaudapada (c.640–690), Govinda (c.670–720), Mandanamiśra (c.670–750).[55]
- ^ Nakamura notes that there are contradictions in doctrine between the four chapters.[78]
- ^ It is often used interchangeably with the term citta-mātra, but they have different meanings. The standard translation of both terms is "consciousness-only" or "mind-only." Several modern researchers object this translation, and the accompanying label of "absolute idealism" or "idealistic monism".[207] A better translation for vijñapti-mātra is representation-only.[208]
- ^ 1. Something is. 2. It is not. 3. It both is and is not. 4. It neither is nor is not.[web 56][209]
- ^ The influence of Mahayana Buddhism on other religions and philosophies was not limited to Vedanta. Kalupahana notes that the Visuddhimagga contains "some metaphysical speculations, such as those of the Sarvastivadins, the Sautrantikas, and even the Yogacarins".[210]
- ^ "An" means "not", or "non"; "utpāda" means "genesis", "coming forth", "birth"[web 57] Taken together "anutpāda" means "having no origin", "not coming into existence", "not taking effect", "non-production".[web 58] The Buddhist tradition usually uses the term "anutpāda" for the absence of an origin[87][89] or sunyata.[211] The term is also used in the Lankavatara Sutra.[212] According to D.T Suzuki, "anutpada" is not the opposite of "utpada", but transcends opposites. It is the seeing into the true nature of existence,[213] the seeing that "all objects are without self-substance".[214]
- ^ "A" means "not", or "non" as in Ahimsa, non-harm; "jāti" means "creation" or "origination;[90] "vāda" means "doctrine"[90]
- ^ Sanskrit: श्री संस्थान गौडपदाचार्य मठ, Śrī Sansthāna Gauḍapadācārya Maṭha
- ^ a b The term "mayavada" is still being used, in a critical way, by the Hare Krshnas. See [web 59] [web 60] [web 61] [web 62]
- ^ Nicholson: "The Brahmasutras themselves espouse the realist Parinamavada position, which appears to have been the view most common among early Vedantins."[215]
- ^ B.N.K. Sharma: "[H]ow difficult he himself found the task of making the Sutras yield a Monism of his conception, is proved by the artificiality and parenthetical irrelevance of his comments in many places, where he seeks to go against the spirit and letter of the Sutras and their natural drift of arguments and dialectic ... he was fighting with all his might and ingenuity against a long line of realistic commentaries."[93]
- ^ The previous period was the "Golden Age of Hinduism"[216] (ca. 320–650 CE[216]), which flourished during the Gupta Empire[217] (320 to 550 CE) until the fall of the Harsha Empire[217] (606 to 647 CE). Prior to this "Golden Age" the "classical synthesis"[218] or "Hindu synthesis"[219][220] emerged, between 500[219]-200[220] BCE and ca. 300 CE,[219] at the beginning of the "Epic and Puranic" c.q. "Preclassical" period. This "classical synthesis" incorporated shramanic[220][221] and Buddhist influences[220][222] and the emerging bhakti tradition into the Brahmanical fold via the smriti literature.[219][220] This synthesis emerged under the pressure of the success of Buddhism and Jainism.[223] During the classical period, power was centralised, along with a growth of far distance trade, standardizarion of legal procedures, and general spread of literacy.[217] Mahayana Buddhism flourished, but the orthodox Brahmana culture began to be rejuvenated by the patronage of the Gupta Dynasty.[224] The position of the Brahmans was reinforced,[217] and the first Hindu temples emerged during the late Gupta age.[217]
- ^ The authorship of this work is disputed. Most 20th-century academic scholars feel it was not authored by Sankara, and Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswathi of Holenarsipur concurs.[citation needed]
- ^ slokārdhena pravaksāmi yaduktaṃ granthakotibhih, brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah
- ^ Pande comes to the same conclusion: "Vivekachudamani, whether actually authored by Shankara or not, is traditionally held to voice his views authentically".[104]
- ^ Nakamura concludes that Shankara was not the author, for several reasons.[225] Shankara understood Buddhist thought, while the author of the commentary shows misunderstandings of Buddhist thought.[225] The commentary uses the terms vijnapti and vjnaptimatra, which is "a uniquely Buddhist usage",[226] and does not appear in Shankara's commentary on the Brahma-sutras.[227] The two commentaries also quote different Upanishads.[228] Nevertheless, Nakamura also concludes: "Although the commentary to the Madukya is not actually by sankara, it may be assumed that there is nothing drastically wrong in using it as a source when discussing early Vedanta philosophy".[225]
- ^ According to both Roodurum and Isaeva, Sureśvara stated that mere knowledge of the identity of Jiva and Brahman is nor enough for liberation, which requires also prolonged meditation on this identity.[119][229]
- ^ According to Pandey, these Mathas were not established by Shankara himself, but were originally ashrams established by Vibhāņdaka and his son Ŗșyaśŗnga.[230] Shankara inherited the ashrams at Dvārakā and Sringeri, and shifted the ashram at Śŗngaverapura to Badarikāśrama, and the ashram at Angadeśa to Jagannātha Purī.[231]
- ^ Sanskrit.org: "Advaitins are non-sectarian, and they advocate worship of Siva and Visnu equally with that of the other deities of Hinduism, like Sakti, Ganapati and others."[web 1]
- ^ According to iskcon.org, "Many Hindus may not strictly identify themselves as Smartas but, by adhering to Advaita Vedanta as a foundation for non-sectarianism, are indirect followers."[web 33]
- ^ Neo-Vedanta seems to be closer to Bhedabheda-Vedanta than to Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, with the acknowledgement of the reality of the world. Nicholas F. Gier: "Ramakrsna, Svami Vivekananda, and Aurobindo (I also include M.K. Gandhi) have been labeled "neo-Vedantists," a philosophy that rejects the Advaitins' claim that the world is illusory. Aurobindo, in his The Life Divine, declares that he has moved from Sankara's "universal illusionism" to his own "universal realism" (2005: 432), defined as metaphysical realism in the European philosophical sense of the term."[232]
- ^ Marek: "Wobei der Begriff Neo-Advaita darauf hinweist, dass sich die traditionelle Advaita von dieser Strömung zunehmend distanziert, da sie die Bedeutung der übenden Vorbereitung nach wie vor als unumgänglich ansieht. (The term Neo-Advaita indicating that the traditional Advaita increasingly distances itself from this movement, as they regard preparational practicing still as inevitable)[233]
- ^ Alan Jacobs: Many firm devotees of Sri Ramana Maharshi now rightly term this western phenomenon as 'Neo-Advaita'. The term is carefully selected because 'neo' means 'a new or revived form'. And this new form is not the Classical Advaita which we understand to have been taught by both of the Great Self Realised Sages, Adi Shankara and Ramana Maharshi. It can even be termed 'pseudo' because, by presenting the teaching in a highly attenuated form, it might be described as purporting to be Advaita, but not in effect actually being so, in the fullest sense of the word. In this watering down of the essential truths in a palatable style made acceptable and attractive to the contemporary western mind, their teaching is misleading.[172]
- ^ See for other examples Conway [web 63] and Swartz [web 2]
- ^ Presently cohen has distnced himself from Poonja, and calls his teachings "Evolutionary Enlightenment".[234] What Is Enlightenment, the magazine published by Choen's organisation, has been critical of neo-Advaita several times, as early as 2001. See.[web 64][web 65][web 66]
- ^ Feuerstein's summary, as given here, is not necessarily representative for Feuerstein's thought on Advaita. It is quoted on nonduality-websites,[web 67] which is informed by the Perennial philosophy and New Age thinking. It is also discerneable in Neo-Advaita. The quote seems to give a subtle reinterpretation, in which the distinction between Real and maya is replaced by a notion of interconnectedness or pantheism. The original quote is from Feuerstein's book "The Deeper Dimension of Yoga: Theory and Practice", p. 257–258. It is preceded by the sentence "The esoteric teaching of nonduality – Vedantic Yoga or Jnana Yoga – can be summarized as follows".
- ^ Compare Shankara's own words, from his commentary on the Brahman Sutras: " It is obvious that the subject and the object — that is, the Self (Atman) and the Not-Self, which are as different as darkness and light are — cannot be identified with each other. It is a mistake to superimpose upon the subject or Self (that is, the "I," whose nature is consciousness) the characteristics of the object or Not-"I" (which is non-intelligent), and to superimpose the subject and its attributes on the object. Nonetheless, man has a natural tendency, rooted in ignorance (avidya), not to distinguish clearly between subject and object, although they are in fact absolutely distinct, but rather to superimpose upon each the characteristic nature and attributes of the other. This leads to a confusion of the Real (the Self) and the Unreal (the Not-Self) and causes us to say such [silly] things as "I am that," "That is mine," and so on ...[web 68]
- ^ King: "In chapter four of his Madhyamakahrdyakarika (on the sravaka-yana), Bhavaviveka puts forward a Sravaka objection to the Mahayana on the grounds that it is a form of crypto-Vedantism"
- ^ The comparison may or may not stand depending on ones stance towards the anatman doctrine laid out in the Buddhist Pali Canon. Some claim that the Pali Canon shows that Gautama the Buddha denied the existence of the Atman. However, no single passage in the entire Canon can be found to this effect. Gautama only ever identified constituents (the five aggregates) and declared them as "not-self", that is, "this is not my self". Depending on how Atman is defined and how it is treated in respect to affirmation and denial in philosophical discourse and contemplative practice, the fact that Atman is central to Advaita Vedanta may or may not be compatible with the Buddhist anatman ("not-self") analysis.
- ^ Ninian Smart is a proponent of the so-called "common core thesis", which states that all forms of mysticism share a common core. See also [web 69] and [web 70]
- ^ With the exception of Āgama, though this is contradicted, subtrated, by the Pramāṇas such as Anumāna, Upamāna, or Arthāpatti
- ^ a b Nakamura 1990, p. 112.
- ^ a b c Potter 2008, p. 6-7.
- ^ kanamura 2004.
- ^ a b c Nakamura 2004, p. 211.
- ^ a b c Nakamura 2004, p. 680.
- ^ a b Nakamura 2004, p. 691.
- ^ a b c d King 2002.
- ^ Isaeva 1993, p. 237.
- ^ Dalal 2009, p. 16, 26-27.
- ^ a b Rambachan 1984.
- ^ a b Dalal & 2009 p22.
- ^ Sivananda 1977, p. viii.
- ^ Dalal 2009, p. 16.
- ^ Dalal 2014.
- ^ Rambachan 1991, p. 5.
- ^ Rambachan 1991, p. 14.
- ^ Davis 2010, p. 40.
- ^ a b Hirst 2005, p. 68.
- ^ a b Rambachan 1991, p. 1-14.
- ^ Nikhalananda 1931, p. viii.
- ^ Nikhalananda 1931, p. viii-ix.
- ^ Lochtefeld 2002, p. 320.
- ^ a b c Raṅganāthānanda 1991, p. 109.
- ^ a b c Deussen 1980, p. 232.
- ^ Loy 1997, p. 62.
- ^ Werner 1994.
- ^ Sugirtharajah 2003, p. 115.
- ^ a b c Sanskrit Dictionary, chit
- ^ Loy 1997, p. 136.
- ^ Braue 1984, p. 81.
- ^ Baue 1984, p. 80.
- ^ a b Puligandla 1997, p. 251-254.
- ^ Adi Shankara, Tattva bodha (1.2)
- ^ Rambachan 1994, p. 124-125.
- ^ Coburn, Thomas B. 1984. pp. 439
- ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 49-50.
- ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 40-50.
- ^ Renard 2010, p. 130.
- ^ a b Renard 2010, p. 131.
- ^ a b Puligandla 1997, p. 232.
- ^ Venkatramaiah 2000, p. xxxii.
- ^ Deussen, Paul and Geden, A. S. The Philosophy of the Upanishads. Cosimo Classics (1 June 2010). P. 86. ISBN 1-61640-240-7.
- ^ a b Atman Etymology Dictionary, Douglas Harper
- ^ a b Sinha 1993.
- ^ Kaplan, Stephen (April 2007). "Vidyā and Avidyā: Simultaneous and Coterminous?: A Holographic Model to Illuminate the Advaita Debate". Philosophy East and west. 2 57: 178–203. doi:10.1353/pew.2007.0019. JSTOR 4488090.
- ^ Mayeda, Sengaku (1992). A Thousand Teachings: The Upadesasahasri of Sankara. Albany: State University of New York Press. p. 82.
- ^ Belling, Noa (2006). Yoga for ideal weight and shape. Sydney, Australia: New Holland Publishers (Australia) P/L. ISBN 978-1-74110-298-7.
- ^ Wilber 2000, p. 132.
- ^ Sarma 1996, p. 137.
- ^ a b King 1995, p. 300 note 140.
- ^ a b Puligandla 1997, p. 228.
- ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 231-232.
- ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 231.
- ^ Grimes 1990, p. 7.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Nakamura 2004, p. 3.
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 426.
- ^ Deutsch 2004, p. 95-96.
- ^ Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxx.
- ^ Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxx–xxxi.
- ^ Deutsch 2004, p. 95.
- ^ Samuel 2010, p. 8.
- ^ Svarghese 2008, p. 259-60.
- ^ a b Flood & Olivelle 2003, p. 273-274.
- ^ Samuel 2010.
- ^ Samuel 2008.
- ^ Kalupahanna 1994.
- ^ a b Raju 1992.
- ^ Werner 1994, p. 27.
- ^ Thurman 1984, p. 34.
- ^ a b Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxxii.
- ^ a b Nakamura 1990, p. 436.
- ^ Pandey 2000, p. 4.
- ^ a b c Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxxiii.
- ^ a b c Roodurmum 2002.
- ^ a b Nakamura 2004, p. 678.
- ^ a b c d Nakamura 2004, p. 679.
- ^ a b c Raju 1992, p. 177.
- ^ a b Nakamura 2004, p. 308.
- ^ a b Nakamura 2004, p. 280.
- ^ Sharma 1997, p. 239.
- ^ Sharma 2000, p. 60.
- ^ Sharma 2000, p. 61.
- ^ a b c d Sharma 2000, p. 62.
- ^ a b Sharma 2000, p. 63.
- ^ Raju 1992, p. 177-178.
- ^ Sarma 1996, p. 152–154.
- ^ a b Renard 2010, p. 157.
- ^ Comans 2000, p. 35-36.
- ^ a b Bhattacharya 1943, p. 49.
- ^ a b c d e f Sarma 1996, p. 127.
- ^ King 1995, p. 128-130, 140.
- ^ Shri Gowdapadacharya & Shri Kavale Math (A Commemoration volume). p. 10.
- ^ a b c d e f g Sharma 2000, p. 64.
- ^ Nakamura 2004.
- ^ a b Michaels 2004, p. 41-43.
- ^ a b Michaels 2004, p. 42.
- ^ Scheepers 2000.
- ^ a b Scheepers 2000, p. 123.
- ^ Scheepers 2000, p. 123-124.
- ^ Shankara, Vivekacūḍāmaṇi
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 776.
- ^ a b Shah-Kazemi 2006, p. 4.
- ^ Singh 2004, p. 1315.
- ^ a b Pande 1994, p. 117-119.
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 262-265.
- ^ Isaeva 1992, p. 240.
- ^ Benedict Ashley, O.P.. The Way toward Wisdom. p. 395. ISBN 0268020280. OCLC 609421317.
- ^ Isaeva 1992, p. 2.
- ^ Ron Geaves (March 2002). "From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara)". 27th Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions, Oxford.
- ^ Klaus Klostermaier (2007), A Survey of Hinduism, Third Edition, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791470824, page 40
- ^ King 2001, p. 128.
- ^ King 2011, p. 128.
- ^ Roodurnum 2002, p. 33-34.
- ^ Isaeva 1992, p. 249.
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 690.
- ^ a b c Nakamura 2004, p. 693.
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 692.
- ^ Feuerstein 1978.
- ^ a b c Roodurmum 2002, p. 30.
- ^ a b Roodurmum 2002, p. 29.
- ^ a b c Roodurmum 2002, p. 31.
- ^ a b Sharma 1997, p. 291.
- ^ Roodurmum 2002, p. 32.
- ^ a b c Roodurmum 2002, p. 35.
- ^ a b c d Sharma 1997, p. 290.
- ^ Sharma 1997, p. 290-291.
- ^ a b c d e Roodurmum 2002, p. 40.
- ^ a b Roodurmum 2002, p. 38.
- ^ Roodurmum 2002, p. 39.
- ^ a b Roodurmum 2002, p. 34.
- ^ Roodurmum 2002, p. 37.
- ^ Roodurmum 2002, p. 41.
- ^ a b Dasgupta 1955, p. 198.
- ^ Dasgupta 1955, p. 198-199.
- ^ Dasgupta 1955, p. 199.
- ^ Karigoudar Ishwaran, Ascetic Culture
- ^ Wendy Sinclair-Brull, Female Ascetics
- ^ H.A. Rose, Ibbetson, Denzil Ibbetson Sir, and Maclagan, Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, page 857
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 782-783.
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 680-681.
- ^ a b c Doniger 1999, p. 1017.
- ^ a b c Popular Prakashan 2000, p. 52.
- ^ Rosen 2006, p. 166.
- ^ Hiltebeitel 2013.
- ^ Morris 2006, p. 135.
- ^ Fort 1998, p. 179.
- ^ Minor 1987, p. 3.
- ^ a b c Nicholson 2010.
- ^ a b Nicholson 2010, p. 2.
- ^ Burley 2007, p. 34.
- ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 24-33.
- ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 27.
- ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 26-27.
- ^ King & 2002 118.
- ^ a b King 1999.
- ^ King 2002, p. =119-120.
- ^ Jones 2006, p. 114.
- ^ King 2002, p. 123.
- ^ King 2002, p. 128.
- ^ King 2002, p. 129-130.
- ^ King 2002, p. 133.
- ^ King 2002, p. 135-142.
- ^ Dense 1999, p. 191.
- ^ a b Mukerji 1983.
- ^ Rambachan 1994, p. 91-92.
- ^ a b Rambachan 1994, p. 91.
- ^ a b c Comans 1993.
- ^ Comans 2000, p. 307.
- ^ Flood 1997.
- ^ a b c Lucas 2011.
- ^ Marek 2008, p. 10, note 6.
- ^ a b Jacobs 2004, p. 82.
- ^ a b Davis 2010, p. 48.
- ^ Yogani 2011, p. 805.
- ^ Caplan 2009, p. 16-17.
- ^ Lucas 2011, p. 102-105.
- ^ Katz 2007.
- ^ J.R.A.S, 1910, p132
- ^ See Sri Bhasya of Ramanuja, II.II.27
- ^ Madhvācārya as Prophetic Witness, by Deepak Sarma. JIRD issue 7 svh 08 15 11
- ^ Dasgupta Surendranath. A History of Indian Philosophy, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922.I, p. 52
- ^ Campbell, W. L. Ed. and trans. 1919. The Tree of Wisdom: Being the Tibetan text with English translation of Nāgārjuna's gnomic verse treatise called the Prajñādanda. Calcutta University. Reprint: Sonam T. Kazi, Gangtok. 1975.
- ^ Consciousness in Indian philosophy: the advaita doctrine of 'awareness only', by Sthaneshwar Timalsina, p. 125
- ^ P. 34 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 2001 By Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
- ^ Tsoṅ-kha-pa Blo-bzaṅ-grags-pa, Robert A. F. Thurman (Page 28)
- ^ John Grimes. Journal of the American Academy of Religion Vol. 66, No. 3 (Autumn, 1998), pp. 684–686
- ^ a b c Deutsch 2004, p. 126, 157.
- ^ S. Mudgal, Advaita of Sankara, A Reappraisal, Impact of Buddhism and Samkhya on Sankara's thought, Delhi 1975, p.187"
- ^ Comans 2000, p. 88–93.
- ^ p200. Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: the Mahāyāna context of the Gauḍapādīya-kārikā, By Richard King. 1995.
- ^ V.V Gokhale, trans. and comments. "The Vedanta philosophy described by Bhavya in his Madhyamakahrdaya" Indo-Iranian journal, VOl II, No. 3, 1958, p 179–80
- ^ N.V. Isaeva, Shankara and Indian Philosophy, SUNY Press, 1993. p14
- ^ Ninian Smart, Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy. London 1964. p.104
- ^ Deutsch 1969, p. 99.
- ^ Deutsch 1969, p. 100-101.
- ^ Kochumuttom 1999.
- ^ Nakamura.
- ^ Deutsch 1988.
- ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 8-9.
- ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 8.
- ^ a b Grimes 1996, p. 234.
- ^ Sivaraman 1973, p. 146.
- ^ Braue 1984, p. 80.
- ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 11.
- ^ Kalupahanan 1994.
- ^ Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxix.
- ^ Kochumuttom 1999, p. 1.
- ^ Kochumuttom 1999, p. 5.
- ^ Garfield 2003.
- ^ Kalupahana 1994, p. 206.
- ^ Renard 2010, p. 160.
- ^ Suzuki 1999.
- ^ Suzuki 1999, p. 123-124.
- ^ Suzuki 1999, p. 168.
- ^ Nicholson 2010, p. 27.
- ^ a b Michaels 2004, p. 40-41.
- ^ a b c d e Michaels 2004, p. 40.
- ^ Samuel 2010, p. 193-228.
- ^ a b c d Hiltebeitel 2002.
- ^ a b c d e Larson 2009.
- ^ Fuller 2004, p. 88.
- ^ Cousins 2010.
- ^ Nath 2001, p. 21.
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 687.
- ^ a b c Nakamura 2004, p. 263.
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 263-264.
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 264.
- ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 265.
- ^ Isaeva 1993, p. 241.
- ^ Pandey 2000, p. 4-5.
- ^ Pandey 2000, p. 5.
- ^ Gier 2013.
- ^ Marek 2008, p. 10 note 6.
- ^ Gleig 2011, p. 10.
Published sources[edit]
- Bhatta, Rathnakara (2013), Shree Shankarayana (May. 2013), pp. 190–380.
- Balasubramanian, R. (2000), Introduction. In: Chattopadhyana (gen.ed.), "History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization. Volume II Part 2: Advaita Vedanta", Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations
- Bhattacharya, Vidhushekhara (1943), Gauḍapādakārikā, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
- Braue, Donald A. (1984), Māyā in Radhakrishnanʾs Thought: Six Meanings Other Than Illusion, Motilall Banarsidass
- Caplan, Mariana (2009), Eyes Wide Open: Cultivating Discernment on the Spiritual Path, Sounds True
- Comans, Michael (1993), The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta. In: Philosophy East and West Vol. 43, No. 1 (Jan. 1993), pp. 19–38.
- Comans, Michael (2000), The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
- Cousins, L.S. (2010), Buddhism. In: "The Penguin Handbook of the World's Living Religions", Penguin
- Dalal, Neil (2009), "Contemplative Practice and Textual Agency in Advaita Vedanta", Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 21 (2009) 15-27
- Dalal, Neil (2014), "Contemplative Grammars: Śaṅkara's Distinction of Upāsana and Nididhyāsana", Journal of Indian Philosophy, doi:10.1007/s10781-014-9258-z
- Dasgupta, Surendranath (1955), A history of Indian philosophy. 5. Southern schools of ́Saivism, Volume 5, CUP Archive
- Davis, Leesa S. (2010), Advaita Vedānta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry, Continuum International Publishing Group
- Dense, Christian D. Von (1999), Philosophers and Religious Leaders, Greenwood Publishing Group
- Deussen, Paul (1980), Sixty Upaniṣads of the Veda, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass
- Deutsch, Eliot (1969), Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press
- Deutsch, Eliot (1988), Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 0-88706-662-3
- Deutsch, Eliot; Dalvi, Rohit (2004), The Essential Vedanta: A New Source Book of Advaita Vedanta, World Wisdom, Inc.
- Doniger, Wendy (1999), Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, Merriam-Webster
- Feuerstein, george (1978), Handboek voor Yoga (Textbook of Yoga), Ankh-Hermes
- Flood, Gavin; Olivelle, Patrick (2003), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Blackwell
- Fort, Andrew O. (1998), Jivanmukti in Transformation: Embodied Liberation in Advaita and Neo-Vedanta, SUNY Press
- Fuller, C. J. (2004), The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-12048-5
- Garfield, Jay L.; Priest, Graham (2003), NAGARJUNA AND THE LIMITS OF THOUGHT. In: Philosophy East & West Volume 53, Number 1 January 2003 1–21 (PDF)
- Gier, Nicholas F. (2012), "Overreaching to be different: A critique of Rajiv Malhotra's Being Different", International Journal of Hindu Studies (Springer Netherlands) 16 (3): 259–285, doi:10.1007/s11407-012-9127-x, ISSN 1022-4556
- Gleig, Ann Louise (2011), Enlightenment After the Enlightenment: American Transformations of Asian Contemplative Traditions, RICE UNIVERSITY/ProQuest
- Grimes, John (1998), "Book reviews: Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism: The Mahayana Context of the Gaudapadiya-karika, by Richard King. SUNY Press, 1995.", Journal of the American Academy of Religion 66 (3): 684–686, doi:10.1093/jaarel/66.3.684, retrieved 2011-11-29
- Grimes, John A. (1990), The seven great untenables: Sapta-vidhā anupapatti, Motilal Banarsidass
- Grimes, John A. (1996), A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, SUNY Press
- Hirst, J. G. Suthren (2005), Śaṃkara's Advaita Vedānta: A Way of Teaching, Routledge
- Hiltebeitel, Alf (2002), Hinduism. In: Joseph Kitagawa, "The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture", Routledge
- Isaeva, N.V. (1993), Shankara and Indian Philosophy, SUNY Press
- Jacobs, Alan (2004), Advaita and Western Neo-Advaita. In: The Mountain Path Journal, autumn 2004, pages 81–88, Ramanasramam
- Jones, Constance; Ryan, JamesD., Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Infobase Publishing
- Kalupahana, David J. (1992), The Principles of Buddhist Psychology, Delhi: ri Satguru Publications
- Kalupahana, David J. (1994), A history of Buddhist philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
- King, Richard (1995), Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: The Mahāyāna Context of the Gauḍapādīya-kārikā, SUNY Press
- King, Richard (1999), "Orientalism and the Modern Myth of "Hinduism"", NUMEN, Vol. 46, pp 146–185 (BRILL)
- King, Richard (2002), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", Taylor & Francis e-Library
- King, Richard (2002), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", Routledge
- Kochumuttom, Thomas A. (1999), A buddhist Doctrine of Experience. A New Translation and Interpretation of the Works of Vasubandhu the Yogacarin, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
- Larson, Gerald James (1998), Classical Sāṃkhya: An Interpretation of Its History and Meaning, London: Motilal Banarasidass, ISBN 81-208-0503-8
- Larson, Gerald James (2009), Hinduism. In: "World Religions in America: An Introduction", Westminster John Knox Press
- Lochtefeld, James G. (2002), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Volume One: A-M, The Rosen Publishing Group
- Lorenzen, David N. (2006), Who Invented Hinduism: Essays on Religion in History, Yoda Press
- Loy, David (1997), Nonduality. A Study in Comparative Philosophy, Humanity Books
- Lucas, Phillip Charles (2011), "When a Movement Is Not a Movement. Ramana Maharshi and Neo-Advaita in North America", Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. Vol. 15, No. 2 (November 2011) (pp. 93–114)
- Mahadevan, T. M. P. (1968), Preceptors of Advaita
- Marek, David (2008), Dualität – Nondualität. Konzeptuelles und nichtkonzeptuelles Erkennen in Psychologie und buddhistischer Praxis (PDF)
- McRae, John (2003), Seeing Through Zen. Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism, The University Press Group Ltd, ISBN 978-0-520-23798-8
- Michaels, Axel (2004), Hinduism. Past and present, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press
- Minor, Rober Neil (1987), Radhakrishnan: A Religious Biography, SUNY Press
- Morris, Brian (2006), Religion and Anthropology: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge University Press
- Mukerji, Mādhava Bithika (1983), Neo-Vedanta and Modernity, Ashutosh Prakashan Sansthan
- Nakamura, Hajime (1990), A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part One, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
- Nakamura, Hajime (2004), A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part Two, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
- Nath, Vijay (2001), "From 'Brahmanism' to 'Hinduism': Negotiating the Myth of the Great Tradition", Social Scientist 2001, pp. 19-50
- Nicholson, Andrew J. (2010), Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Columbia University Press
- Nikhalananda, Swami (1931), Drg-Drsya-Viveka. An inquiry inti the nature of the 'seer' and the 'seen.', Sri Ramakrishna Asrama
- Pande, Govind Chandra (1994), Life and Thought of Śaṅkarācārya, Motilal Banarsidass Publ, ISBN 978-81-208-1104-1
- Pandey, S.L. (2000), Pre-Sankara Advaita. In: Chattopadhyana (gen.ed.), "History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization. Volume II Part 2: Advaita Vedanta", Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations
- Popular Prakashan (2000), Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1-5, Popular Prakashan
- Potter, Karl H. (2008), The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Advaita Vedānta Up to Śaṃkara and His Pupils, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
- Puligandla, Ramakrishna (1997), Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy, New Delhi: D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd.
- Raju, P.T. (1992), The Philosophical Traditions of India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
- Rambachan, Anant Anand (1984), The attainment of moksha according to Shankara and Vivekananda with special reference to the significance of scripture (sruti) and experience (anubhabva) (PDF), University of Leeds
- Rambachan, Anantanand (1991), Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Shankara, University of Hawaii Press
- Rambachan, Anatanand (1994), The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas, University of Hawaii Press
- Raṅganāthānanda, Swami; Nelson, Elva Linnéa (1991), Human Being in Depth: A Scientific Approach to Religion, SUNY Press
- Renard, Philip (2010), Non-Dualisme. De directe bevrijdingsweg, Cothen: Uitgeverij Juwelenschip
- Rosen, Steven (2006), Essential Hinduism, Greenwood Publishing Group
- Roodurmum, Pulasth Soobah (2002), Bhāmatī and Vivaraṇa Schools of Advaita Vedānta: A Critical Approach, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
- Samuel, Geoffrey (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press
- Sarma, Chandradhar (1996), The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
- Scheepers, Alfred (2000), De Wortels van het Indiase Denken, Olive Press
- Shah-Kazemi, Reza (2006), Paths to Transcendence: According to Shankara, Ibn Arabi & Meister Eckhart, World Wisdom
- Sharma, C. (1997), A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0365-5
- Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (2000), History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature: From the Earliest Beginnings to Our Own Times, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
- Singh, N.; Barauh, B. (2004), Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Pali Literature, Volume 1, Global Vision Publishing Ho
- Sivananda (1977), Brahma Sutras, Motilal Banarsidass
- Sivaraman, K. (1973), Śaivism in Philosophical Perspective: A Study of the Formative Concepts, Problems, and Methods of Śaiva Siddhānta, Motilall Banarsidass
- Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō (1999), Studies in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
- Svarghese, Alexander P. (2008), India : History, Religion, Vision And Contribution To The World, Atlantic Publishers & Dist
- Thurman, Robert (1984), The Central Philosophy of Tibet, Princeton University Press
- Venkatramaiah, Munagala (2000), Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi: On Realizing Abiding Peace and Happiness, Inner Directions, ISBN 1-878019-00-7
- Werner, Karel (1994), The Yogi and the Mystic, Routledge
- White (ed.), David Gordon (2000), Introduction. In: Tantra in practice, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press
- Wilber, Ken (2000), Integral Psychology, Shambhala Publications
- Yogani (2011), Advanced Yoga Practices Support Forum Posts of Yogani, 2005–2010, AYP Publishing
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Sankara Acarya Biography – Monastic Tradition
- ^ a b c "James Swartz, ''What is Neo-Advaita?''". Advaita.org.uk. 10 July 2012. Retrieved 2012-09-10.
- ^ a b Advaita Academy, Experience versus knowledge – a brief look at samAdhi (Part 2 of 2)
- ^ Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Anubhava
- ^ a b "Peter L. Holleran, ''What Is Advaita Vedanta '', excerpts taken from the book "All about Hinduism", written by Sri Swami Sivananda". Mountainrunnerdoc.com. Retrieved 2012-09-10.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Sanskrit Dictionary, jnanam
- ^ a b c d e f Maharishi's Teaching, Meaning of the word "Satcitananda" (Sat Chit Ananda)
- ^ "saccidānanda". Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit. spokensanskrit.de. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ a b c d Sanskrit dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit, ananda
- ^ a b c "Advaita Yoga Ashrama, ''Jnana Yoga. Introduction''". Yoga108.org. Retrieved 2012-09-10.
- ^ "Antahkarana- Yoga (definition)". En.mimi.hu. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- ^ Oxford Index, nididhyāsana
- ^ "Puranas at Sacred Texts". Sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 2012-09-10.
- ^ "Advaitasiddhi.org". Advaitasiddhi.org. Archived from the original on 22 June 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- ^ a b Vedantasara, edited by Pandit V. Krishnamacharya (1953)
- ^ a b c d advaita-vision.org, Discrimination
- ^ [Sangeetha Menon (2007), Advaita Vedānta. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
- ^ a b Intro Vedanta-Tattvabodha
- ^ Himalayan Academy Publications (2002). Hinduism's Online Lexicon. (accessed: 30 March 2008)
- ^ Arvind Sharma, Sleep as a State of Consciousness in Advaita Vedånta. State University of New York Press
- ^ a b c d advaita.org.uk, Om' – three states and one reality (An interpretation of the Mandukya Upanishad)
- ^ Ramana Maharshi. States of Consciousness.
- ^ Sri Chinmoy. Summits of God-Life.
- ^ advaita-deanta.org, Advaita Vedanta before Sankaracarya
- ^ Asram Vidya Order, Biographical Notes About Sankara And Gaudapada
- ^ Shri Kavale Math
- ^ Sringeri Math, Sri Adi Shankaracharya
- ^ a b c d e f THE BHAMATI AND VIVARANA SCHOOLS
- ^ a b Rajesh Anand, Vachaspati Mishra
- ^ Sangeetha Menon (2007), Advaita Vedānta, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- ^ a b c Advaita Vision, teachers
- ^ "Adi Shankara's four Amnaya Peethams". Archived from the original on 26 June 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-20.
- ^ a b iskcon.org, Heart of Hinduism: The Smarta Tradition
- ^ a b Hinduism-guide.com, Hinduism
- ^ "The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 2/Jnana-Yoga/The Absolute and Manifestation – Wikisource". En.wikisource.org. 5 April 2008. Archived from the original on 28 June 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- ^ a b c d e f Michael Hawley, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888—1975), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- ^ Undivided Journal, About the Journal
- ^ Jerry Katz on Nonduality, What is Nonduality?
- ^ "Аdvaita – flame of nondualty – english". Nonduality.narod.ru. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- ^ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888—1975)
- ^ Ashok Vora, Radhakrishna's notion of intuitive knowledge: a critique
- ^ DR. SIR S. RADHAKRISHNAN, Intellect and Intuition in Sankara's Philosophy
- ^ a b c d Jiddu Krishnamurti, Saanen 2nd Conversation with Swami Venkatesananda 26 July 1969
- ^ Encyclopedy of Hinduism, Mahavakyas
- ^ Sri Swami Sivananda, Karma Yoga
- ^ Ashtavakra Samhita
- ^ Poojya Swami Sri Atmananda Saraswati, Lessons on Tattva Bodha-1
- ^ Tattva Bodha (Knowledge of Truth)
- ^ Atma Bodha, translation by Swami Chinmayananda
- ^ Atma Bodha, translation and commentary by A.S.DEEKSHITULU and CH. SUNDARA RAMIAH
- ^ Self-knowledge, translation and commentary by Swami Nikhilananda
- ^ Vedantasara, translation by Swami Nikhilananda
- ^ Vedantasara , with Balobodhini-commentary of Apadeva (1911)
- ^ Vedantasara, translation and commentary by Swami Nikhinalanda (1931)
- ^ Vedantasara, edited by colonel G.A Jacob (1934)
- ^ Anthony Peter Iannini (2001), Nāgārjuna's Emptiness and Pyrrho's Skepticism
- ^ Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit, Utpāda
- ^ Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit, Anutpāda
- ^ Swami B.V. Giri, Gaudya Touchstone, Mayavada and Buddhism – Are They One and the Same?
- ^ harekrishnatemple.com, Mayavada Philosophy
- ^ harekrsna.com, The Mayavada School
- ^ Gaura Gopala Dasa, The Self-Defeating Philosophy of Mayavada
- ^ Timothy Conway, Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita and Real Advaita-Nonduality
- ^ What is Enlightenment? 1 September 2006
- ^ What is Enlightenment? 31 December 2001
- ^ What is Enlightenment? 1 December 2005
- ^ Jerry Katz, Nonduality.com – An Introduction
- ^ Shankara, "Commentary on the Vedanta Sutras (Brahmasutra-Bhashya)
- ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Mysticism, Mysticism
- ^ Richard King (1999), Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India, and 'The Mystic East.
Further reading[edit]
- History
- Nakamura, Hajime (1990), A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part One, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
- Nakamura, Hajime (2004), A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part Two, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
- Potter, Karl H. (1981), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. 3: Advaita Vedanta up to Sankara and his Pupils, Princeton: Princeton University Press
- Potter, Karl H. (2006), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies vol. 11: Advaita Vedānta from 800 to 1200, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
- King, Richard (1995), Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism: The Mahayana Context of the Gaudapadiya-Karika, SUNY Press
- Isaeva, N.V. (1995), From Early Vedanta to Kashmir Shaivism: Gaudapada, Bhartrhari, and Abhinavagupta, SUNY Press
- Introductions
- Eliot Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta: a philosophical reconstruction, East-West Center Press, Honolulu, 1969
- Kokileswar Sastri, An introduction to Adwaita philosophy: a critical and systematic exposition of the Sankara school of Vedanta, Bharatiya Publishing House, Varanasi, 1979.
- M. K. Venkatarama Aiyar, Advaita Vedanta, according to Sankara, Asia Publishing House, New York, 1965.
- Ayyar, Krishnan, Introduction to Advaita Vedanta
- Source books
- Eliot Deutsch and J. A. B. van Buitenen, A source book of Advaita Vedanta, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1971.
- A. J. Alston, A Samkara source-book, Shanti Sadan, London, 1980–1989
- V. Panoli, Upanishads in Sankara's own words: Isa, Kena, Katha, and Mandukya with the Karika of Gaudapada: with English translation, explanatory notes and footnotes, Mathrubhumi, Calicut, 1991–1994.
- Practice
- Comans, Michael (2000), The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
- Dalal, Neil (2009), "Contemplative Practice and Textual Agency in Advaita Vedanta", Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 21 (2009) 15-27
- Dalal, Neil (2014), "Contemplative Grammars: Śaṅkara's Distinction of Upāsana and Nididhyāsana", Journal of Indian Philosophy
- Dubois, Joël André-Michel (2014), The Hidden Lives of Brahman: Sankara's Vedanta through His Upanisad Commentaries, in Light of Contemporary Practice, SUNY
- Topical studies
- Arvind Sharma (1995), The philosophy of religion and Advaita Vedanta: a comparative study in religion and reason, Pennsylvania State University Press
- Satyapal Verma (1992), Role of Reason in Sankara Vedanta, Parimal Publication, Delhi
- Sangam Lal Pandey (1989), The Advaita view of God, Darshana Peeth, Allahabad
- Kapil N. Tiwari (1977), Dimensions of renunciation in Advaita Vedanta, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi
- S. G. Mudgal (1975), Advaita of Sankara, a reappraisal: Impact of Buddhism and Samkhya on Sankara's thought, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi
- Adya Prasad Mishra (1967), The development and place of bhakti in Sankaran Vedanta, University of Allahabad
- Shankara
- Natalia V. Isayeva (1993), Shankara and Indian philosophy, SUNY, New York
- Elayath. K. N. Neelakantan (1990), The Ethics of Sankara, University of Calicut
- A. Ramamurti (1974), Advaitic mysticism of Sankara, Visvabharati, Santiniketan
- Raghunath D. Karmarkar (1966), Sankara's Advaita, Karnatak University, Dharwar
- Sringeri Sharada Peetham
- Madhava Vidyaranya, Sankara-Digvijaya, translated by Swami Tapasyananda, Sri Ramakrishna Math, 2002, ISBN 81-7120-434-1.
- Neo-Advaita
- Madhukar, The Simplest Way, Editions India, USA & India 2006, ISBN 81-89658-04-2
- Madhukar, Erwachen in Freiheit, Lüchow Verlag, German, 2.Edition, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-363-03054-1
- Indian languages
- Mishra, M., Bhāratīya Darshan (भारतीय दर्शन), Kalā Prakāshan.
- Sinha, H. P., Bharatiya Darshan ki ruparekha (Features of Indian Philosophy), 1993, Motilal Benarasidas, Delhi–Varanasi.
- Swāmi Paramānanda Bhārati, Vedānta Prabodha (in Kannada), Jnānasamvardhini Granthakusuma, 2004
- Contemporary criticism
- Rao, Srinivasa (2011), Advaita: A Contemporary Critique, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-807981-1
External links[edit]