GetWiki
Advaita Vedanta
ARTICLE SUBJECTS
being →
database →
ethics →
fiction →
history →
internet →
language →
linux →
logic →
method →
news →
policy →
purpose →
religion →
science →
software →
truth →
unix →
wiki →
ARTICLE TYPES
essay →
feed →
help →
system →
wiki →
ARTICLE ORIGINS
critical →
forked →
imported →
original →
Advaita Vedanta
please note:
- the content below is remote from Wikipedia
- it has been imported raw for GetWiki
{{Short description|Hindu tradition of textual interpretation}}{{Redirect|Advaita}}{{EngvarB|date=March 2015}}{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2019}}{{Hinduism}}{{Advaita}}{{Hindu philosophy}}{{Contains special characters|Indic}}File:Raja Ravi Varma - Sankaracharya.jpg|right|thumb|Adi ShankaraAdi ShankaraAdvaita Vedanta ({{IPAc-en|Ê|d|Ë|v|aɪ|t|É|_|v|É|Ë|d|ÉË|n|t|É}}; , {{IAST3|Advaita VedÄnta}}) is a Hindu-tradition of textual exegesis and philosophy and a Hindu sÄdhanÄ, a path of spiritual discipline and experience.{{refn|group=note|name=spiritual experience}} In a narrow sense it refers to the scholarly tradition belonging to the orthodox Hindu VedÄnta{{refn|group=note|name="Vedanta_meaning"}} tradition, with works written in Sanskrit, as exemplified by the Vedic scholar and teacher (acharya){{sfn|Suthren Hirst|2005|p=1}} Adi Shankara{{refn|group=note|name="Influence_of_Shankara"}} (9th cent. CE); in a broader sense it refers to a popular medieval and modern syncretic tradition, blending VedÄnta with Yoga and other traditions and producing works in vernacular.{{sfn|Allen|2017}} The term Advaita (literally "non-secondness", but usually rendered as "nondualism",{{sfn|Deutsch|1988|p=3}}{{sfn|Milne|1997}} and often equated with monism{{refn|group=note|name=Monism}}) refers to vivartavada, the idea that "the world is merely an unreal manifestation (vivarta) of Brahman,"{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=27}} as proposed by the 13th century scholar Prakasatman.{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=25â27}} In this view, Brahman alone is ultimately real, while the transient phenomenal world is an illusory appearance (maya) of Brahman. In this view, jivatman, the experiencing self, is ultimately non-different ("na aparah") from Ätman-Brahman, the highest Self or Reality.{{sfn|Menon|2012}}{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|p=3, note 2; p.54}}{{sfn|Koller|2013|p=100-101}}{{refn|group=note|name=Brahman}} The jivatman or individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of singular Ätman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies.{{sfn|Indich|2000|p=50}} In the Advaita tradition, moksha (liberation from suffering and rebirth){{sfn|Sharma|1995|pp=8â14, 31â34, 44â45, 176â178}}{{sfn|Fost|1998|pp=387â405}} is attained through recognizing this illusoriness of the phenomenal world and disidentification from the body-mind complex and the notion of 'doership',{{refn|group=note|name=self-evident}} and acquiring vidyÄ (knowledge){{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p={{page needed|date=February 2022}}}} of one's true identity as Atman-Brahman,{{sfn|Comans|2000|p=183}}{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|pp=48â52}}{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=78â79}}{{sfn|Lipner|2000|p=68}} self-luminous (svayam prakÄÅa){{refn|group=note|name=self-luminous}} awareness or Witness-consciousness.{{sfn|Lipner|2000|p=60}}{{refn|group=note|name=Consciousness}} Upanishadic statements such as tat tvam asi, "that['s how] you are," destroy the ignorance (avidyÄ) regarding one's true identity by revealing that (jiv)Ätman is non-different from immortal{{refn|group=note|name=Brahman_immortal}} Brahman.{{refn|group=note|name=Brahman}} Advaita VedÄnta adapted philosophical concepts from Buddhism, giving them a Vedantic basis and interpretation,{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=13, 691}} and was influenced by, and influenced, various traditions and texts of Indian philosophy.{{sfn|Novetzke|2007|pp=255â272}}{{sfn|Goodall|1996|p=xli}}{{sfn|Davis|2014|pp=13, 167 with note 21}} The earliest Advaita writings are the Sannyasa Upanishads (first centuries CE), the VÄkyapadÄ«ya, written by Bhartá¹hari (second half 5th century,{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=426}}) and the MÄndÅ«kya-kÄrikÄ written by Gauá¸apÄda (7th century).{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=3}} While Adi Shankara is generally regarded as the most prominent exponent of the Advaita VedÄnta tradition,{{sfn|Olivelle|1992|pp=xâxi, 8â10, 17â18}}{{sfn|Phillips|1998|p=332, note 68}}{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|pp=221, 680}}{{sfn|Madaio|2017}} and his works have a prominent place in the Advaita tradition, some of the most prominent Advaita-propositions come from other Advaitins, and his early influence has been questioned.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29â30}}{{sfn|King|2002|p=128}}{{refn|group=note|name="Influence_of_Shankara"}} Shankara's prominence started to take shape only centuries later in the 14th century, with the ascent of Sringeri matha and its jagadguru Vidyaranya (Madhava, 14th cent.) in the Vijayanagara Empire.{{refn|group=note|name="Sringeri_14th_c"}} Adi Shankara did not embrace Yoga,{{sfn|Fiordalis|2021|p=24, note 12}} and emphasized that, since Brahman is ever-present, Brahman-knowledge is immediate and requires no 'action' or 'doership', that is, striving (to attain) and effort.{{sfn|Dubois|2013|p=xvii}}{{sfn|Barua|2015|p=262}}{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=182 (Up.I.18.103-104)}} The Advaita VedÄnta tradition in medieval times accepted yogic samadhi as a means to knowledge, explicitly incorporating elements from the yogic tradition and texts like the Yoga Vasistha and the Bhagavata Purana,{{sfn|Madaio|2017|pp=4â5}} culminating in Swami Vivekananda's full embrace and propagation of Yogic samadhi as an Advaita means of knowledge and liberation.{{sfn|Rambachan|1994}}{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p={{page needed|date=February 2022}}}} The Advaita tradition, as exemplified by Mandana Misra and others, also prescribes elaborate preparatory practice, including contemplation of the mahavakyas,{{sfn|Barua|2015|p=262}}{{sfn|Deutsch|1988|pp=104â105}}{{sfn|Comans|2000|pp=125â142}}{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=xvii}}{{refn|group=note|name="Influence_of_Shankara"}} posing a paradox of two opposing approaches which is also recognized in other spiritual disciplines and traditions.{{sfn|Barua|2015|p=262}}{{sfn|Fiordalis|2021}}{{refn|group=note|name=subitism}} In the 19th century, due to the influence of Vidyaranya's SarvadarÅanasaá¹
graha,{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=160}} the importance of Advaita VedÄnta was overemphasized by Western scholarship,{{sfn|Suthren Hirst|2005|p=3}} and Advaita VedÄnta came to be regarded as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality, despite the numerical dominance of theistic Bhakti-oriented religiosity.{{sfn|Sharma|2006|p=38â43, 68â75}}{{sfn|King|2013|p=128â132}}{{sfn|Suthren Hirst|2005|p=3}}{{refn|group=note|name="Influence_of_Shankara"}} In modern times, Advaita views appear in various Neo-VedÄnta movements.{{sfn|King|2002|pp=119â133}}{{TOC limit|limit=3}}- the content below is remote from Wikipedia
- it has been imported raw for GetWiki
Etymology and nomenclature
Etymology
The word Advaita is a composite of two Sanskrit words:- Prefix "a-" (ठ), meaning "non-"
- "Dvaita" (दà¥à¤µà¥à¤¤), which means 'duality' or 'dualism'.
- Nonduality of subject and object{{sfn|Loy|1988}}{{sfn|Reddy Juturi|2021}} As Gaudapada states, when a distinction is made between subject and object, people grasp to objects, which is samsara. By realizing one's true identity as Brahman, there is no more grasping, and the mind comes to rest.{{sfn|Reddy Juturi|2021}}
- Nonduality of Atman and Brahman, the famous diction of Advaita Vedanta that Atman is not distinct from Brahman; the knowledge of this identity is liberating.
- Monism: there is no other reality than Brahman, that "Reality is not constituted by parts," that is, ever-changing 'things' have no existence of their own, but are appearances of the one Existent, Brahman; and that there is in reality no duality between the "experiencing self" (jiva) and Brahman, the Ground of Being.{{refn|group=note|name=Brahman}}
Advaita Vedanta
While "a preferred terminology" for Upanisadic philosophy "in the early periods, before the time of Shankara" was Puruá¹£avÄda,{{sfn|Timalsina|2017}}{{refn|group=note|name="Puruá¹£avÄda"|See also Purusha.}} the Advaita VedÄnta school has historically been referred to by various names, such as Advaita-vada (speaker of Advaita), Abheda-darshana (view of non-difference), Dvaita-vada-pratisedha (denial of dual distinctions), and Kevala-dvaita (non-dualism of the isolated).{{sfn|King|1995|p=268 with note 2}} It is also called mÄyÄvÄda by Vaishnava opponents, akin to Madhyamaka Buddhism, due to their insistence that phenomena ultimately lack an inherent essence or reality,{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=78}}{{sfn|Lorenzen|2015}}{{sfn|Baird|1986}}{{sfn|Goswami Abhay Charan Bhaktivedanta|1956}}According to Richard King, a professor of Buddhist and Asian studies, the term Advaita first occurs in a recognizably Vedantic context in the prose of Mandukya Upanishad.{{sfn|King|1995|p=268 with note 2}} According to Frits Staal, a professor of philosophy specializing in Sanskrit and Vedic studies, the word Advaita itself is from the Vedic era, and the Vedic sage Yajnavalkya (8th or 7th-century BCE{{sfn|Scharfstein|1998|p=9â11}}{{sfn|Olivelle|1998|p=xxxvi with footnote 20}}) is credited to be the one who coined it.{{sfn|Staal|2008|p=365 note 159}} Stephen Phillips, a professor of philosophy and Asian studies, translates the Advaita containing verse excerpt in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, as "An ocean, a single seer without duality becomes he whose world is Brahman."{{refn|group=note|{{Verse translation|italicsoff=y|सलिलॠà¤à¤à¤¸à¥ दà¥à¤°à¤·à¥à¤à¤¾ ठदà¥à¤µà¥à¤¤à¤¸à¥ à¤à¤µà¤¤à¤¿ à¤à¤· बà¥à¤°à¤¹à¥à¤®à¤²à¥à¤à¤¸à¥à¤¸à¤®à¥à¤°à¤¾à¤à¥ ति ह à¤à¤¨à¤®à¥ à¤à¤µà¤¾à¤ ठनà¥à¤¶à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸ याà¤à¥à¤à¤µà¤²à¥à¤à¥à¤¯à¤¸à¥à¤à¤·à¤¾ ठसà¥à¤¯ परमा à¤à¤¤à¤¿à¤¸à¥ à¤à¤·à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¯ परमा समà¥à¤ªà¤¦à¥Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.32Sanskrit: Wikisource {{Webarchive>url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240116175559weblink | An ocean, a single seer without duality becomes he whose world is Brahman,O King, Yajnavalkya instructedThis is his supreme way. This is his supreme achievement. | Phillips | p=295 note 24}}{{refn | For an alternate English translation: Robert Hume, The Thirteen Principal Upanishads, BU 4.3.32, Oxford University Press, p. 138.}}}}A reference to Non-duality is also made in the Chandogya Upanishad, within a dialogue between the Vedic sage Uddalaka Aruni and his son Svetaketu, as follows :{{Verse translation|italicsoff=y|सदà¥à¤µ सà¥à¤®à¥à¤¯à¥à¤¦à¤®à¤à¥à¤° à¤à¤¸à¥à¤¤ à¤à¤à¤®à¥à¤µà¤¾ ठदà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¤®à¥à¤¤à¤¦à¥à¤§à¥à¤ à¤à¤¹à¥à¤°à¤¸à¤¦à¥à¤µà¥à¤¦à¤®à¤à¥à¤° à¤à¤¸à¥à¤¦à¥à¤à¤®à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¤ तसà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤¦à¤¸à¤¤à¤ सà¤à¥à¤à¤¾à¤¯à¤¤ | Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1Sanskrit: Wisdomlimb {{Webarchive>url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220906220300weblink | Somya, before this world was manifest, there was only existence, one without duality On this subject, some maintain that before this world was manifest, there was only non-existence, one without a second. Out of that non-existence, existence emerged.|attr2=Chandogya Upanishad}}}}Advaita traditionWhile the term "Advaita Vedanta" in a strict sense may refer to the scholastic tradition of textual exegesis established by Shankara, "advaita" in a broader sense may refer to a broad current of advaitic thought, which incorporates advaitic elements with yogic thought and practice and other strands of Indian religiosity, such as Kashmir Shaivism and the Nath tradition.{{sfn|Madaio|2017|p=5}} The first connotation has also been called "Classical Advaita"{{sfn|Madaio|2017}}{{sfn|King|1995|p=9}} and "doctrinal Advaita,"{{sfn|Sharma|1993|p=xiv}} and its presentation as such is due to mediaeval doxographies,{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p={{page needed|date=February 2022}}}} the influence of Orientalist Indologists like Paul Deussen,{{sfn|Madaio|2017|pp=2, note 6}} and the Indian response to colonial influences, dubbed neo-Vedanta by Paul Hacker, who regarded it as a deviation from "traditional" Advaita Vedanta.{{sfn|Madaio|2017}} Yet, post-Shankara Advaita Vedanta incorporated yogic elements, such as the Yoga Vasistha, and influenced other Indian traditions, and neo-Vedanta is based on this broader strand of Indian thought.{{sfn|Madaio|2017}} This broader current of thought and practice has also been called "greater Advaita Vedanta,"{{sfn|Allen|2017}} "vernacular advaita,"{{sfn|Madaio|2017}} and "experiential Advaita."{{sfn|Sharma|1993|p=xiv}} It is this broader advaitic tradition which is commonly presented as "Advaita Vedanta," though the term "advaitic" may be more apt.{{sfn|Madaio|2017}}{{refn|group=note|name=Madaio2017_umbrella}}Monism{{See also|Metaphysics|Ontology}}The nondualism of Advaita VedÄnta is often regarded as an idealist monism.{{refn|group=note|name=Monism}} According to King, Advaita VedÄnta developed "to its ultimate extreme" the monistic ideas already present in the Upanishads.{{refn|group=note|{{harvnb|King|1995|p=65}}: "The prevailing monism of the Upanishads was developed by the Advaita Vedanta to its ultimate extreme."}} In contrast, states Milne, it is misleading to call Advaita VedÄnta "monistic," since this confuses the "negation of difference" with "conflation into one."{{sfn|Milne|1997|p=168}} Advaita is a negative term (a-dvaita), states Milne, which denotes the "negation of a difference," between subject and object, or between perceiver and perceived. {{sfn|Milne|1997|p=168}}According to Deutsch, Advaita VedÄnta teaches monistic oneness, however without the multiplicity premise of alternate monism theories.{{sfn|Deutsch|1988|pp=3, 10, 13â14 with footnotes}} According to Jacqueline Suthren Hirst, Adi Shankara positively emphasizes "oneness" premise in his Brahma-sutra Bhasya 2.1.20, attributing it to all the Upanishads.{{sfn|Suthren Hirst|2005|p=79}}Nicholson states Advaita VedÄnta contains realistic strands of thought, both in its oldest origins and in Shankara's writings.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=68}}DarÅana (view) â central concerns(File:Wassertropfen.jpg|right|thumb|A drop merging in the Ocean, an analogy for the Jivatman merging into Brahman){{See|Hindu philosophy}}Advaita is a subschool of VedÄnta, the latter being one of the six classical Hindu darÅanas, an integrated body of textual interpretations and religious practices which aim at the attainment of moksha, release or liberation from transmigratory existence.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=73}}{{sfn|Klostermaier|2007|p=26}}{{refn|group=note|It is not a philosophy in the western meaning of the word, according to Milne.{{sfn|Milne|1997|p=166}}}} Traditional Advaita VedÄnta centers on the study and what it believes to be correct understanding of the sruti, revealed texts, especially the Principal Upanishads,{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=237}}{{sfn|Dalal|2009|pp=16, 26â27}} along with the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad GitÄ, which are collectively called as Prasthantrayi.A main question in all schools of Vedanta is the relation between the individual self (jiva) and Atman/Brahman.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=25}} Shankara and his followers regard Atman/Brahman to be the ultimate Real, and jivanatman "ultimately [to be] of the nature of Atman/Brahman."{{sfn|Koller|2006}}{{sfn|Koller|2013|p=100-101}} This truth is established from a literal reading of selected parts{{sfn|Long|2020|p=245}} of the oldest Principal Upanishads and Brahma Sutras, and is also found in parts of the Bhagavad GitÄ and numerous other Hindu texts,{{sfn|Menon|2012}} and is regarded to be self-evident,{{sfn|Koller|2013|p=101}}{{refn|group=note|Reason clarifies the truth and removes objections, according to the Advaita school, however it believes that pure logic cannot lead to philosophical truths and only experience and meditative insights do. The Sruti, it believes is a collection of experience and meditative insights about liberating knowledge,{{sfn|Koller|2006|p=xii}}}} though great effort is made to show the correctness of this reading, and its compatibility with reason and experience, by criticizing other systems of thought.{{sfn|Koller|2013|p=101}} Vidya, correct knowledge or understanding of the identity of jivan-Ätman and Brahman, destroys or makes null avidya ('false knowledge'), and results in liberation.{{sfn|Koller|2013|pp=99â106}}{{refn|group=note|{{harvnb|Sharma|1993|pp=72â83}}: "According to Advaita, the pure subject is our true self whose knowledge is liberative, (...) If the subject could be realised in its purity then all misery would cease: this is called self-knowledge"}}According to the contemporary Advaita tradition, this knowledge can be obtained by svÄdhyÄya, study of the self and of the Vedic texts, which consists of four stages of samanyasa: virÄga ('renunciation'), sravana ('listening to the teachings of the sages'), manana ('reflection on the teachings') and nididhyÄsana, introspection and profound and repeated meditation on the mahavakyas, selected Upanishadic statements such as tat tvam asi ('that art thou' or 'you are That') which are taken literal, and form the srutic evidence for the identity of jivanatman and Atman-Brahman.{{sfn|Deutsch|1980|p=105-108}}{{sfn|Derrida|1992|p=203}}WEB,weblink Oxford Index, nididhyÄsana, 8 February 2017, 5 July 2017,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20170705051012weblink">weblink live, This meditation negates the misconceptions, false knowledge, and false ego-identity, rooted in maya, which obfuscate the ultimate truth of the oneness of Brahman, and one's true identity as Atman-Brahman.{{sfn|Long|2020|p=245}} This culminates in what Adi Shankara refers to as anubhava, immediate intuition, a direct awareness which is construction-free, and not construction-filled. It is not an awareness of Brahman, but instead an awareness that is Brahman.{{sfn|Davis|2010|p=34â35}} Although the threefold practice is broadly accepted in the Advaita tradition, and affirmed by Mandana Misra,{{sfn|Fiordalis|2021|p=18-19}} it is at odds with Shankara,{{sfn|Rambachan|1991|p=97}} who took a subitist position,{{sfn|Fiordalis|2021|p=6}} arguing that moksha is attained at once when the mahavakyas, articulating the identity of Atman and Brahman, are understood.{{sfn|Fiordalis|2021|p=9}}{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=182 (Up.I.18.103-104)}}See also kelamuni (2006), The Philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya, section "II. The Threefold Means," on Brahma Sutra Bhashya 4.1.2 and subitism.While closely related to Samkhya,{{sfn|Scheepers|2010|p=126, 128}} the Advaita VedÄnta tradition rejects the dualism of Samkhya purusha (primal consciousness) and prakriti (nature), instead stating that Brahman is the sole Reality,{{sfn|Koller|2006}}{{sfn|Koller|2013}} "that from which the origination, subsistence, and dissolution of this universe proceed."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=19}} Samkhya argues that Purusha is the efficient cause of all existence while Prakriti is its material cause.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=19}} Advaita, like all Vedanta schools, states that Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause. What created all existence is also present in and reflected in all beings and inert matter, the creative principle was and is everywhere, always.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|pp=18â20}} By accepting this postulation, various theoretical difficulties arise which Advaita and other VedÄnta traditions offer different answers for.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|pp=20â22}}{{sfn|Koller|2006}}{{sfn|Koller|2013}} First, how did Brahman, which is sat ('existence'), without any distinction, become manifold universe? Second, how did Brahman, which is cit ('consciousness'), create the material world? Third, if Brahman is ananda ('bliss'), why did the empirical world of sufferings arise? The Brahma Sutras do not answer these philosophical queries, and later Vedantins including Shankara had to resolve them.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|pp=20â22}} To solve these questions, Shankara introduces the concept of "Unevolved Name-and-Form," or primal matter corresponding to Prakriti, from which the world evolves,{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=20}} coming close to Samkhya dualism.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=22}} Shankara's notion of "Unevolved Name-and-Form" was not adopted by the later Advaita tradition; instead, the later tradition turned avidya into a metaphysical principle, namely mulavidya or "root ignorance," a metaphysical substance which is the "primal material cause of the universe (upadana)."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=78}} Prakasatmans (13th c.) defense of vivarta to explain the origin of the world, which declared phenomenal reality to be an illusion,{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=25â27}} became the dominant explanation, with which the primacy of Atman/Brahman can be maintained.{{sfn|Koller|2006}}{{sfn|Koller|2013}}Reality and ignoranceFile:SwansCygnus olor.jpg|right|thumb|The swan is an important motif in Advaita. The white colour of swan symbolises Sattva gun & the ability to discern Satya (Real, Eternal) from Mithya (Unreal, Changing), just as the mythical swan ParamahamsaParamahamsaClassical Advaita VedÄnta states that all reality and everything in the experienced world has its root in Brahman, which is unchanging Consciousness.{{sfn|Menon|2012}} To Advaitins, there is no duality between a Creator and the created universe.{{sfn|Menon|2012}}{{sfn|Sharma|2008|p=5â14}} All objects, all experiences, all matter, all consciousness, all awareness are somehow also this one fundamental reality Brahman.{{sfn|Menon|2012}} Yet, the knowing self has various experiences of reality during the waking, dream and dreamless states,{{sfn|Nicholson, Hugh|2011|pp=171â172, 191}} and Advaita VedÄnta acknowledges and admits that from the empirical perspective there are numerous distinctions.{{sfn|Grimes|2004|pp=31â33}} Advaita explains this by postulating different levels of reality,{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|p=232}}{{sfn|Sharma|1995|pp=174â178}}{{sfn|Fowler|2002|pp=246â247}}{{sfn|Nicholson, Hugh|2011|pp=171â172, 191}} and by its theory of errors (anirvacaniya khyati).{{sfn|Thrasher|1993|p=1â7}}{{sfn|Menon|2012}}Three levels of Reality/truth{{See also|Three Bodies Doctrine (Vedanta)|Two truths doctrine}}Shankara proposes three levels of reality, using sublation as the ontological criterion:{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|p=232}}{{sfn|Sharma|1995|pp=174â178}}{{sfn|Fowler|2002|pp=246â247}}
PÄramÄrthika - Sat (True Reality)Ätman{{See also|Samadhi|Buddha-nature|Sunyata|Choiceless awareness}}Ätman (IAST: Ätman, Sanskrit: à¤à¤¤à¥à¤®à¤¨à¥) is the "real self"{{sfnp|Dalal|2011|p=38}}{{sfnp|Johnson|2009|p=entry "Atman (self)"}}{{sfn|Bowker|2000c|loc="Atman"}}{{sfn|Timalsina|2014|pp=3â23}}{{refn|group=note|weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20141230210157weblink">Atman, Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press (2012), Quote: "1. real self of the individual; 2. a person's soul"}} or "essence"WEB,weblink Sanskrit Dictionary, Atman, 21 December 2015, 22 December 2015,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20151222144841weblink">weblink live, {{refn|group=note|name="Payne2005p200"}} of the individual. It is caitanya, Pure Consciousness,{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=103 (verse 1), p.105 (note 1)}} a consciousness, states Sthaneshwar Timalsina, that is "self-revealed, self-evident and self-aware (svaprakashata),"{{sfn|Timalsina|2014|pp=3â23}} and, states Payne, "in some way permanent, eternal, absolute or unchanging."{{refn|group=note|name="Payne2005p200"}} It is self-existent awareness, limitless and non-dual.{{sfn|Rambachan|2006|pp=7, 99â103}} It is "a stable subjectivity, or a unity of consciousness through all the specific states of individuated phenomenality."{{sfn|Ram-Prasad|2013|p=235}} Ätman, states Eliot Deutsch, is the "pure, undifferentiated, supreme power of awareness", it is more than thought, it is a state of being, that which is conscious and transcends subject-object divisions and momentariness.{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|pp=48â51}} According to Ram-Prasad, "it" is not an object, but "the irreducible essence of being [as] subjectivity, rather than an objective self with the quality of consciousness."{{sfn|Ram-Prasad|2013|p=237}}According to Shankara, it is self-evident and "a matter not requiring any proof" that Atman, the 'I', is 'as different as light is from darkness' from non-Atman, the 'you' or 'that', the material world whose characteristics are mistakingly superimposed on Atman, resulting in notions as "I am this" and "This is mine." One's real self is not the constantly changing body, not the desires, not the emotions, not the ego, nor the dualistic mind,{{sfn|Sharma|2007|p=44â45, 90}}{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|pp=50â51, 101â107}}{{sfn|Fowler|2002|pp=256â258, 261â263}} but the introspective, inwardly self-conscious "on-looker" (saksi),{{sfn|Raju|1985|pp=448â449}} which is in reality completely disconnected from the non-Atman.The jivatman or individual self is a mere reflection of singular Atman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies.{{sfn|Indich|2000|p=50}} It is "not an individual subject of consciousness,"{{sfn|Ram-Prasad|2013|p=235}} but the same in each person and identical to the universal eternal Brahman,{{sfn|Sharma|2007|pp=9â13, 29â30, 45â47, 79â86}} a term used interchangeably with Atman.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992}}Atman is often translated as soul,{{refn|group=note|name="Soul"}} though the two concepts differ significantly, since "soul" includes mental activities, whereas "Atman" solely refers to detached witness-consciousness.Three states of consciousness and TuriyaAdvaita posits three states of consciousness, namely waking (jagrat), dreaming (svapna), deep sleep (suá¹£upti), which are empirically experienced by human beings,{{sfn|Sharma|2004|p=3}}{{sfn|Indich|2000|pp=57â60}} and correspond to the Three Bodies Doctrine:{{sfn|Wilber|2000|p=132}}
Svayam prakÄÅa (self-luminosity)In the Advaita tradition, consciousness is svayam prakÄÅa, "self-luminous,"{{sfn|Indich|2000|p=24, 28}}{{sfn|Menon|2012}}{{refn|group=note|name=self-luminous}} which means that "self is pure awareness by nature."{{sfn|Ganeri|2019|p=103}} According to Dasgupta, it is "the most fundamental concept of the Vedanta."{{sfn|Dasgupta|1975|p=148-149}} According to T. R. V. Murti, the Vedanta concept is explained as follows:{{blockquote|The point to be reached is a foundational consciousness that is unconditional, self-evident, and immediate (svayam-prakÄÅa). It is that to which everything is presented, but is itself no presentation, that which knows all, but is itself no object. The self should not be confused with the contents and states which it enjoys and manipulates. If we have to give an account of it, we can describe it only as what it is not, for any positive description of it would be possible only if it could be made an object of observation, which from the nature of the case it is not. We "know" it only as we withdraw ourselves from the body with which we happen to be identified, in this transition.{{sfn|Murti|1983|p=339}}{{refn|group=note|Compare {{harvnb|Fasching|2021}}: For Advaita VedÄnta, consciousness is to be distinguished from all contents of consciousness that might be introspectively detectable: It is precisely consciousness of whatever contents it is conscious of and not itself one of these contents. Its only nature is, Advaita holds, prakÄÅa (manifestation); in itself it is devoid of any content or structure and can never become an object.}}}}According to Jonardon Ganeri, the concept was introduced by the Buddhist philosopher DignÄga (c.480âc.540 CE), and accepted by the Vedanta tradition;{{sfn|Ganeri|2019|p=103}} according to Zhihua Yao, the concept has older roots in the Mahasanghika school.{{sfnp|Yao|2005|p=2}}BrahmanAccording to Advaita VedÄnta, Brahman is the true Self, consciousness, awareness, and the only Reality (Sat).{{sfn|Potter|2008|pp=6â7}}{{sfn|Lochtefeld|2002a|p=122}}{{sfn|Raju|2006|p=426; Conclusion chapter part XII}}{{refn|group=note|name=Brahman_definitions}} Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth"{{sfn|Venkatramaiah|2000|p=xxxii}} or absolute Real.{{sfn|Padiyath|2014|p=177}} It is That which is unborn and unchanging,{{sfn|Lochtefeld|2002a|p=122}}{{sfn|Brodd|2009|p=43â47}} and immortal.{{refn|group=note|name=Brahman_immortal}} Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore maya. Brahman is "not sublatable",{{sfn|Potter|2008|pp=6â7}} which means it cannot be superseded by a still higher reality:{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|p=231}}{{blockquote|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".{{sfn|Potter|2008|pp=6â7}}}}In Advaita, Brahman is the substrate and cause of all changes.{{sfn|Lochtefeld|2002a|p=122}}{{sfn|Brodd|2009|p=43â47}} Brahman is considered to be the material cause{{refn|group=note|It provides the "stuff" from which everything is made}} and the efficient cause{{refn|group=note|It sets everything into working, into existence}} of all that exists.{{sfn|Raju|2006|p=426 and Conclusion chapter part XII}}{{sfnp|Dhavamony|2002|pp=43â44}}{{sfnp|Martinez-Bedard|2006|pp=18â35}} The Brahma Sutras I.1.2 state that Brahman is:{{blockquote|...that from which the origination, subsistence, and dissolution of this universe proceed.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=18-19}} {{refn|group=note|Gambhirananda: "That (is Brahman) from which (are derived) the birth etc. of this (universe)."{{sfn|Gambhirananda|2021|p=13}}}}}}Advaita's Upanishadic roots state Brahman's qualities{{refn|group=note|Svarupalakshana, qualities, definition based on essence}} to be Sat-cit-Änanda,{{sfn|Raju|1992|p=228}}{{sfn|Deutsch|1980|p=9}}{{sfnp|Arapura|1986|pp=12, 13â18}} "true being-consciousness-bliss,"{{sfnp|Arapura|1986|pp=12, 13â18}}{{sfn|Deutsch|1980|p=9â10 with footnote 2}} or "Eternal Bliss Consciousness".{{sfn|Werner|1994}}{{refn|group=note|The Advaitin scholar Madhusudana Sarasvati explained Brahman as the Reality that is simultaneously an absence of falsity (sat), absence of ignorance (cit), and absence of sorrow/self-limitation (ananda).{{sfnp|Arapura|1986|pp=12, 13â18}}}} A distinction is made between nirguna Brahman, formless Brahman, and saguna Brahman, Brahman with form, that is, Ishvara, God. Nirguna Brahman is undescrible, and the Upanishadic neti neti ('not this, not that' or 'neither this, nor that') negates all conceptualizations of Brahman.{{sfn|Derrida|1992|p=203}}{{sfnp|Pradhan|2014|p=19}}VyÄvahÄrika (conventional reality) â Avidya and {{IAST|MÄyÄ}}AvidyÄ (ignorance)AvidyÄ is a central tenet of Shankara's Advaita, and became the main target of Ramanuja's criticism of Shankara.{{sfn|Murthi|2009|p=152}}{{sfn|Grimes|1990|p={{page needed|date=February 2022}}}} In Shankara's view, avidyÄ is adhyasa, "the superimposition of the qualities of one thing upon another."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=77}} As Shankara explains in the Adhyasa-bhasya, the introduction to the Brahmasutrabhasya:{{blockquote|Owing to an absence of discrimination, there continues a natural human behaviour in the form of 'I am this' or 'This is mine'; this is avidya. It is a superimposition of the attributes of one thing on another. The ascertainment of the nature of the real entity by separating the superimposed thing from it is vidya (knowledge, illumination).}}Due to avidya, we're steeped in loka drsti, the empirical view.{{sfn|Murthi|2009|p=157}} From the beginning we only perceive the empirical world of multiplicity, taking it to be the only and true reality.{{sfn|Murthi|2009|p=157}}{{sfn|Rambachan|2006|pp=114â122}} Due to avidyÄ there is ignorance, or nescience, of the real Self, Atman-Brahman, mistakingly identifying the Self with the body-mind complex. With parmartha drsti ignorance is removed and vidya is acquired, and the Real, distinctionless Brahman is perceived as the True reality.{{sfn|Murthi|2009|p=157}}The notion of avidyÄ and its relationship to Brahman creates a crucial philosophical issue within Advaita VedÄnta thought: how can avidyÄ appear in Brahman, since Brahman is pure consciousness?{{sfnp|Kaplan|2007}} For Shankara, avidya is a perceptual or psychological error.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=78}} According to Satchidanandendra Saraswati, for Shankara "avidya is only a technical name to denote the natural tendency of the human mind that is engaged in the act of superimposition."{{sfn|Murthi|2009|p=160}} The later tradition diverged from Shankara by turning avidya into a metaphysical principle, namely mulavidya or "root ignorance," a metaphysical substance which is the "primal material cause of the universe (upadana)," thereby setting aside Shankara's 'Unevolved Name-and-Form' as the explanation for the existence of materiality.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=78}}{{sfn|Murthi|2009|p=149}} According to Mayeda, "[i]n order to save monism, they characterized avidya as indefinable as real or unreal (sadasadbhyam anirvacanya), belonging neither to the category of being nor to that of non-being."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=78}} In the 20th century, this theory of mulavidya became a point of strong contention among Advaita Vedantins, with Satchidanandendra Saraswati arguing that Padmapada and Prakasatman had misconstrued Shanakara's stance.{{sfn|Murthi|2009|p=150}}Shankara did not give a 'location' of avidya, giving precedence to the removal of ignorance.{{sfn|Doherty|2005|p=209-210}}{{refn|group=note|Compare Parable of the Poisoned Arrow}} Sengaku Mayeda writes, in his commentary and translation of Adi Shankara's Upadesasahasri:{{blockquote|Certainly the most crucial problem which Sankara left for his followers is that of avidyÄ. If the concept is logically analysed, it would lead the Vedanta philosophy toward dualism or nihilism and uproot its fundamental position.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=82}}}}The later Advaita-tradition diverged from Shankara, trying to determinate a locus of avidya,{{sfn|Potter|2006|p=7-8}} with the Bhamati-school locating avidya in the jiva c.q. prakriti, while the Vivarana-school locates it in Brahman.{{sfn|Murthi|2009|pp=155-156}}{{sfn|Potter|2006|p=7-8}}{{IAST|MÄyÄ}} (appearance)In Advaita Vedanta, the perceived empirical world, "including people and other existence," is MÄyÄ, "appearance."{{sfnp|Vroom|1989|pp=122â123}}{{sfn|Shastri|1911|pp=5 and ix}} Jiva, conditioned by the human mind, is subjected to experiences of a subjective nature, and misunderstands and interprets the physical, changing world as the sole and final reality.{{sfnp|Vroom|1989|pp=122â123}} Due to avidya, we take the phenomenal world to be the final reality, while in Reality only Sat ( True Reality, Brahman) is Real and unchanging.{{sfn|Shastri|1911|pp=58â73}}While Shankara took a realistic stance, and his explanations are "remote from any connotation of illusion," the 13th century scholar Prakasatman, founder of the influential Vivarana school, introduced the notion that the world is illusory.{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=25â27}}{{sfn|Koller|2006}}{{sfn|Koller|2013}} According to Hacker, maya is not a prominent theme for Shankara, in contrast to the later Advaita tradition, and "the word maya has for [Shankara] hardly any terminological weight."{{sfn|Nicholson, Hugh|2011|p=266, note 21}}Five koshas (sheaths)Due to avidya, atman is covered by koshas (sheaths or bodies), which hide man's true nature. According to the Taittiriya Upanishad, the Atman is covered by five koshas, usually rendered "sheath".{{sfnp|Roeser|2005|p=15}} They are often visualized like the layers of an onion.{{sfnp|Belling|2006}} From gross to fine the five sheaths are:
Parinamavada and vivartavada - causality and change{{See also|Samkhya#Causality|l1=SatkÄryavÄda|Ajativada|Vivartavada}}Cause and effect are an important topic in all schools of Vedanta.{{refn|group=note|These concepts are discussed in ancient and medieval texts of Hinduism, and other Indian religions, using synonymous terms. Cause is referred to as {{IAST|kÄraá¹a}} (à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤£), nidana (निदान), hetu (हà¥à¤¤à¥) or mulam (मà¥à¤²à¤®à¥), while effect is referred to as {{IAST|kÄrya}} (à¤à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¯), phala (फल), parinam (परिणाम) or Shungam (शà¥à¤à¥à¤).{{sfnp|Nagao|1991|pp=127â128}}}} Two sorts of causes are recognised, namely {{IAST|Nimitta kÄraá¹a}}, the efficient cause, that which causes the existence of the universe, and {{IAST|UpÄdÄna kÄraá¹a}}, the material cause, that from which the matery of this universe comes.{{sfnp|Lipner|1996|pp=109â126}} All schools of VedÄnta agree that Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause, and all subscribe to the theory of SatkÄryavÄda, which means that the effect is pre-existent in the cause.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=27}}{{refn|group=note|Advaita furthermore states that effect ({{IAST|kÄrya}}) is non-different from cause ({{IAST|kÄraá¹a}}), but the cause is different from the effect. This principle is called {{IAST|kÄrya-kÄraá¹a ananyatva}}. When the cause is destroyed, the effect will no longer exist. For example, cotton cloth is the effect of the cotton threads, which is the material cause. Without threads there will be no cotton cloth. Without cotton there will be no thread. According to Swami Sivananda, in his comments on the {{IAST|BrahmasÅ«tra-BhÄá¹£ya}} 2.1.9, Adi Shankara describes this as follows:{{blockquote|{{IAST|ananyatve'pi kÄryakÄraá¹ayoḥ kÄryasya kÄraá¹Ätmatvaá¹ na tu kÄraá¹asya kÄryÄtmatvaá¹}}Despite the non-difference of cause and effect, the effect has its self in the cause but not the cause in the effect.The effect is of the nature of the cause and not the cause the nature of the effect.Therefore the qualities of the effect cannot touch the cause.WEB,weblink Brahma Sutras by Swami Sivananda, Swami-krishnananda.org, 2011-06-10,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20110612173736weblink">weblink 12 June 2011, live, }}}}There are different views on the origination of the empirical world from Brahman. All commentators "agree that Brahman is the cause of the world," but disagree on how exactly Brahman is the cause of the world.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=27}} According to Nicholson, "Mediaeval Vedantins distinguished two basic positions." Parinamavada is the idea that the world is a real transformation (parinama) of Brahman.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=27}} Vivartavada is the idea that {{blockquote|the world is merely an unreal manifestation (vivarta) of Brahman. Vivartavada states that although Brahman appears to undergo a transformation, in fact no real change takes place. The myriad of beings are unreal manifestation, as the only real being is Brahman, that ultimate reality which is unborn, unchanging, and entirely without parts.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=27}}}}, Brahmajnanalimala 1.20}}The Brahma Sutras, the ancient Vedantins, most sub-schools of VedÄnta,{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=27}} as well as Samkhya argue for parinamavada. The "most visible advocates of Vivartavada," states Nicholson, are the Advaitins, the followers of Shankara.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=27}} "Although the world can be described as conventionally real", adds Nicholson, "the Advaitins claim that all of Brahman's effects must ultimately be acknowledged as unreal before the individual self can be liberated".{{refn|group=note|According to Eliot Deutsch, Advaita VedÄnta states that from "the standpoint of Brahman-experience and Brahman itself, there is no creation" in the absolute sense, all empirically observed creation is relative and mere transformation of one state into another, all states are provisional and a cause-effect driven modification.{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|pp=40â43}}}}Yet, Adi Shankara himself most likely explained causality through parinamavada.{{sfn|King|1999|p=221}}{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=27}}{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=25â27}} In Shankara's works "Brahman constitutes the basic essence (svabhava) of the universe (BS Bh 3.2.21) and as such the universe cannot be thought of as distinct from it (BS Bh 2.1.14)." In Shankara's view, then, "The world is real, but only in so far as its existence is seen as totally dependent upon Brahman."{{sfn|King|1999|p=221}}Shankara introduced the concept of "Unevolved Name-and-Form," or primal matter corresponding to Prakriti, from which the world evolves,{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=20}} but this concept was not adopted by the later Advaita tradition.{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=25â27}} Vivartavada became the dominant explanation, with which the primacy of Atman/Brahman can be maintained.{{sfn|Koller|2006}}{{sfn|Koller|2013}} Scholars such as Hajime Nakamura and Paul Hacker already noted that Adi Shankara did not advocate Vivartavada, and his explanations are "remote from any connotation of illusion".{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=25â27}}{{refn|group=note|According to Hugh Nicholson, "the definitive study on the development of the concept of vivarta in Indian philosophy, and in Advaita Vedanta in particular, remains Hacker's Vivarta.{{sfn|Nicholson, Hugh|2011|pp=266 note 20, 167â170}} According to Hacker, "the word maya has for [Shankara] hardly any terminological weight."{{sfn|Nicholson, Hugh|2011|p=266 note 21}}}}It was the 13th century scholar Prakasatman, who founded the influential Vivarana school, who gave a definition to vivarta, introducing the notion that the world is illusory. It is Prakasatman's theory that is sometimes misunderstood as Adi Shankara's position.{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=25â27}} Andrew Nicholson concurs with Hacker and other scholars, adding that the vivarta-vada isn't Shankara's theory, that Shankara's ideas appear closer to parinama-vada, and the vivarta explanation likely emerged gradually in Advaita subschool later.{{refn|group=note|Compare the misunderstanding of Yogacharas concept of vijñapti-mÄtra, 'representation-only', as 'consciousness-only'.}}Moksha â liberating knowledge of BrahmanKnowledge is liberatingFile:Sri Ramana Maharshi - Portrait - G. G Welling - 1948.jpg|thumb|upright|Ramana MaharshiRamana Maharshi{{See also|Jnana|Prajna (Vedic)|MahÄvÄkyas#PrajñÄnam Brahma|l1=Jnana|l2=Prajna|l3=PrajñÄnam Brahma}}The soteriological goal, in Advaita, is to gain self-knowledge as being in essence (Atman), awareness or witness-consciousness, and complete understanding of the identity of jivan-Ätman and Brahman.{{sfn|Comans|2000|p=183}} Correct knowledge of Atman and Brahman is the attainment of Brahman, immortality,{{sfn|Rambachan|2006|p=26}} and leads to moksha (liberation) from suffering{{refn|group=note|The suffering created by the workings of the mind entangled with physical reality}} and samsara, the cycle of rebirth{{sfn|Comans|2000|p=183}} This is stated by Shankara as follows:{{blockquote|I am other than name, form and action.My nature is ever free!I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.I am pure Awareness, always non-dual. | Upadesasahasri 11.7>{{sfn | 2000|p=183}}}}According to Advaita VedÄnta, liberation can be achieved while living, and is called Jivanmukti.{{sfn|Lochtefeld|2002|p=320}} {{sfn|Comans|2000|pp=183â184}}{{refn|group=note|name=transformation}} in contrast to Videhamukti (moksha from samsara after death) in theistic sub-schools of VedÄnta.{{sfn|Deussen|1980}}{{better source needed|date=January 2022}} The Atman-knowledge, that is the knowledge of true Self and its relationship to Brahman is central to this liberation in Advaita thought.{{refn|group=note|The true Self is itself just that pure consciousness, without which nothing can be known in any way.(...) And that same true Self, pure consciousness, is not different from the ultimate world Principle, Brahman (...) 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.{{sfn|Potter|2008|pp=6â7}}}} Atman-knowledge, to Advaitins, is that state of full awareness, liberation and freedom which overcomes dualities at all levels, realizing the divine within oneself, the divine in others and all beings, the non-dual Oneness, that Brahman is in everything, and everything is Brahman.{{sfn|Rambachan|2006|pp=7, 99â103}}{{sfn|Sharma|2007|pp=9â13, 29â30, 45â47, 79â86}}{{refn|group=note|name="Fowler2002_monism"}}According to Anantanand Rambachan, in Advaita, this state of liberating self-knowledge includes and leads to the understanding that "the self is the self of all, the knower of self sees the self in all beings and all beings in the self."{{sfn|Rambachan|2006|pp=109â111}}Attaining vidyÄ (knowledge)Advaita VedÄnta regards the liberated state of being Atman-Brahman as one's true identity and inherent to being human. According to Shankara and the Vivarana-school, no human action can 'produce' this liberated state, as it is what one already is.{{sfn|Barua|2015|p=262}} As Swami Vivekananda stated:{{blockquote|The Vedas cannot show you Brahman, you are That already. They can only help to take away the veil that hides truth from our eyes. The cessation of ignorance can only come when I know that God and I are one; in other words, identify yourself with Atman, not with human limitations. The idea that we are bound is only an illusion [Maya]. Freedom is inseparable from the nature of the Atman. This is ever pure, ever perfect, ever unchangeable. | Vyasa Sutra), Swami Vivekananda{{sfnp | 1947|pp=63-65}}}}Yet, the Advaita-tradition also emphasizes human effort, the path of Jnana Yoga, a progression of study and training to realize one's true identity as Atman-Brahman and attain moksha.{{sfn|Barua|2015|p=262}}{{sfn|Deutsch|1988|pp=104â105}}{{sfn|Comans|2000|pp=125â142}} According to critics of neo-Advaita, which also emphasizes direct insight, traditional Advaita Vedanta entails more than self-inquiry or bare insight into one's real nature, but also includes self-restraint, textual studies and ethical perfection. It is described in classical Advaita books like Shankara's Upadesasahasri{{sfn|Mayeda|2006}} and the Vivekachudamani, which is also attributed to Shankara.Sruti (scriptures), proper reasoning and meditation are the main sources of knowledge (vidya) for the Advaita VedÄnta tradition.{{sfn|Rambachan|1984}}{{sfn|Dalal|2009|p=22}}{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=xvii}} It teaches that correct knowledge of Atman and Brahman is achievable by svÄdhyÄya,{{sfn|Sivananda|1977|p=viii}} study of the self and of the Vedic texts, and three stages of practice: sravana (perception, hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation),{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=xvii}} a three-step methodology that is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.{{sfn|Rao|Paranjpe|2015|p=6â7, 177â178, 215}}{{harvnb|Grimes|1996|pp=98â99}}Preparation: the fourfold qualitiesThe Advaita student has to develop the fourfold qualities,{{sfnp|Maharaj|2014|pp=88, context: pp. 82â108}} or behavioral qualifications (Samanyasa, Sampattis, sÄdhana-catustaya):{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|pp=251â254}}{{sfn|Davis|2010|pp=38â39}}{{sfn|Deutsch|1980|p=105â108}}{{refn|group=note|These characteristics and steps are described in various Advaita texts, such as by Shankara in Chapter 1.1 of Brahmasutrabhasya,{{sfn|Deutsch|1980|p=105-108}} and in the Bhagavad Gita Chapter 10}} A student in Advaita VedÄnta tradition is required to develop these four qualities:
The threefold practice: sravana (hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation)The Advaita tradition teaches that correct knowledge, which destroys avidya, psychological and perceptual errors related to Atman and Brahman,{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=78â79}} is obtained in jnanayoga through three stages of practice,{{sfn|Davis|2010|pp=38â39}} sravana (hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation).{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=xvii}} This three-step methodology is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:{{sfn|Rao|Paranjpe|2015|p=6â7, 177â178, 215}}
GuruAdvaita VedÄnta school has traditionally had a high reverence for Guru (teacher), and recommends that a competent Guru be sought in one's pursuit of spirituality, though this is not mandatory.{{sfn|Comans|2000|p=182}} Reading of Vedic literature and reflection is the most essential practice.{{sfn|Comans|2000|p=182}} Adi Shankara, states Comans, regularly employed compound words "such as Sastracaryopadesa (instruction by way of the scriptures and the teacher) and VedÄntacaryopadesa (instruction by way of the Upanishads and the teacher) to emphasize the importance of Guru".{{sfn|Comans|2000|p=182}} According to Comans, this reflects the Advaita tradition which holds a competent teacher as important and essential to gaining correct knowledge, freeing oneself from false knowledge, and to self-realization.{{sfn|Comans|2000|pp=182â183}} Nevertheless, in the Bhamati-school the guru has a less essential role, as he can explain the teachings, but the student has to venture its further study.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p={{page needed|date=February 2022}}}}A guru is someone more than a teacher, traditionally a reverential figure to the student, with the guru serving as a "counselor, who helps mold values, shares experiential knowledge as much as literal knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who helps in the spiritual evolution of a student.Joel Mlecko (1982), The Guru in Hindu Tradition {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230906162935weblink |date=6 September 2023 }} Numen, Volume 29, Fasc. 1, pp. 33â61 The guru, states Joel Mlecko, is more than someone who teaches specific type of knowledge, and includes in its scope someone who is also a "counselor, a sort of parent of mind and soul, who helps mold values and experiential knowledge as much as specific knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who reveals the meaning of life."Pramana (means of knowledge)In classical Indian thought, pramana (means of knowledge) concerns questions like how correct knowledge can be acquired; how one knows, how one doesn't; and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.BOOK, Karl, Potter, 2002, Presuppositions of India's Philosophies, Motilal Banarsidass, 81-208-0779-0, 25â26, BOOK, DPS, Bhawuk, 2011, Spirituality and Indian Psychology, Anthony Marsella, Springer, 978-1-4419-8109-7, 172, In contrast to other schools of Indian philosophy, early Vedanta paid little attention to pramana.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=46}} The Brahmasutras are not concerned with pramana, and pratyaksa (sense-perception) and anumana (inference) refer there to sruti and smriti respectively.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=46}} Shankara recognized the means of knowledge,{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=46}}{{refn|group=note|Mayeda refers to statements from Shankara regarding epistemology (pramana-janya) in section 1.18.133 of Upadesasahasri, and section 1.1.4 of Brahmasutra-bhasya.{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=46â47}}{{sfnp|BÄdarÄyaá¹a|1936|p=35}} NB: some manuscripts list Upadesasahasri verse 1.18.133 as 2.18.133, while Mayeda lists it as 1.18.133, because of interchanged chapter numbering.{{sfn|Åaá¹ karÄcÄrya|1949|loc=Verse 2.8.133, p. 258}}{{sfn|Potter|2014|p=249}}}} but his thematic focus was upon metaphysics and soteriology, and he took for granted the pramanas.{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=47}} For Shankara, sabda is the only means of knowledge for attaining Brahman-jnana.{{sfn|Suthren Hirst|2005|p=49-50}} According to Sengaku Mayeda, "in no place in his works [...] does he give any systematic account of them,"{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=47}} taking Atman-Brahman to be self-evident (svapramanaka) and self-established (svatahsiddha), and "an investigation of the means of knowledge is of no use for the attainment of final release."{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=47}}Nevertheless, the Advaita tradition accepts altogether six kinds of {{IAST|pramÄá¹as}}.{{sfn|Grimes|1996|p=238}}{{sfn|Datta|1932|pp=221â253}}{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|p=228}}{{sfn|Suthren Hirst|2005|p=49-50}} While Adi Shankara emphasized Åabda (शबà¥à¤¦), relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts with regard to religious insights,{{sfn|Deutsch|2000|p=245-248}}{{sfn|Grimes|1996|p=238}}{{sfn|King|1999|p=14}} and also accepted pratyaká¹£a (पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¤à¥à¤·à¤¾à¤¯), perception; and anumÄá¹a (ठनà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤¨), inference â Classical Advaita VedÄnta, just like the Bhatta Purvamimamsaka school, also accepts upamÄá¹a (à¤à¤ªà¤®à¤¾à¤¨), comparison, analogy; arthÄpatti (ठरà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤ªà¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤¿), postulation, derivation from circumstances;{{sfn|Flood1996|p=225}} and anupalabdhi (ठनà¥à¤ªà¤²à¤¬à¥à¤§à¤¿), non-perception, negative/cognitive proof.{{sfn|Deutsch|2000|p=245-248}}{{sfn|Grimes|1996|p=238}}SamadhiThe Advaita tradition emphasizes that, since Brahman is ever-present, Brahman-knowledge is immediate and requires no 'action', that is, striving and effort, as articulated by Shankara;{{sfn|Dubois|2013|p=xvii}} yet, it also prescribes elaborate preparatory practice, including yogic samadhi, posing a paradox which is also recognized in other spiritual disciplines and traditions.{{sfn|Barua|2015}}{{sfn|Fiordalis|2021}}{{refn|group=note|name=subitism}}Shankara regarded the srutis as the means of knowledge of Brahman, and he was ambivalent about yogic practices and meditation, which at best may prepare one for Brahma-jnana. According to Rambachan, criticising Vivekananda, Shankara states that the knowledge of Brahman can only be obtained from inquiry of the Shruti, and not by Yoga or samadhi, which at best can only silence the mind.{{sfn|Rambachan|1994|pp=124â125}} The Bhamati school and the Vivarana school differed on the role of contemplation, but they both "deny the possibility of perceiving supersensuous knowledge through popular yoga techniques."{{sfn|Cenkner|1995|p=96}} Later Advaita texts like the Dá¹g-Dá¹Åya-Viveka (14th century) and VedÄntasara (of Sadananda) (15th century) added samÄdhi as a means to liberation, a theme that was also emphasized by Swami Vivekananda.{{sfn|Madaio|2017|pp=4â5}} The Vivekachudamani, traditionally attributed to Shankara but post-dating him,{{sfn|Grimes|2004|p=23}} "conceives of nirvikalpa samadhi as the premier method of Self-realization over and above the well-known vedantic discipline of listening, reflection and deep contemplation."{{sfn|Madaio|2017|p=5}} Koller states that yogic concentration is an aid to gaining knowledge in Advaita.{{sfn|Koller|2013|p=101}}Anubhava ('experience')The role of anubhava, anubhuti ("experience," "intuition"{{sfn|Bowker|2000b|loc="Anubhava"}}) as "experience" in gaining Brahman-jnana is contested. While neo-Vedanta claims a central position for anubhava as "experience," Shankara himself regarded reliance on textual authority as sufficient for gaining Brahman-jnana,{{sfn|Halbfass|2017|p=387}}{{refn|group=note|See also ramesam, AtmA anubhava / anubhUti (blog).}} "the intuition of Brahman,"{{sfn|Bowker|2000b|loc="Anubhava"}} and used anubhava interchangeably with pratipatta, "understanding".{{sfn|Suthren Hirst|2005|p=68}} Arvind Sharma argues that Shankara's own "direct experience of the ultimate truth" guided him in selecting "those passages of the scriptures that resonate with this experience and will select them as the key with which to open previously closed, even forbidden, doors."{{sfn|Sharma|2000|p=177}}{{refn|group=note|{{harvnb|Sharma|2000|p=177}} refers to Brahma Sutra Bhashya 4.1.15, "which tradition views as an allusion to his own direct experience of the ultimate truth." It runs as follows: [...] How can one contest the heart-felt cognition of another as possessing brahman-knowledge, even though bearing a body?}}The Vivekachudamani "explicit[ly] declar[es] that experience (anubhuti) is a pramana, or means of knowing (VCM 59),"{{sfn|Madaio|2017|p=5}} and neo-Vedanta also accepts anubhava ("personal experience") as a means of knowledge.{{sfn|Rambachan|1991|pp=xiiâxiii}} Dalal and others state that anubhava does not center around some sort of "mystical experience," but around the correct knowledge of Brahman.{{sfn|Dalal|2009|p=22}}{{sfn|Rambachan|1991|pp=1â14}} Nikhalananda concurs, stating that (knowledge of) Atman and Brahman can only be reached by buddhi, "reason,"{{sfn|Nikhalananda|1931|p=viii}} stating that mysticism is a kind of intuitive knowledge, while buddhi is the highest means of attaining knowledge.{{sfn|Nikhalananda|1931|pp=viiiâix}}Adhyaropa Apavada - imposition and negation{{See also|Neti neti|l1=Neti Neti}}Since Gaudapada,{{sfn|Nelson|1996|p=29}} who adopted the Buddhist four-cornered negation which negates any positive predicates of 'the Absolute',{{sfn|Raju|1971|p=177}}{{Sfn|Sarma|2007|pp=126, 143-144}}{{refn|group=note|1. Something is. 2. It is not. 3. It both is and is not. 4. It neither is nor is not.{{sfn|Garfield|Priest|2003}}}} a central method in Advaita Vedanta to express the inexpressable is the method called Adhyaropa Apavada.{{sfn|Nelson|1996|p=29}} In this method, which was highly estimated by Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a property is imposed (adhyaropa) on Atman to convince one of its existence, whereafter the imposition is removed (apavada) to reveal the true nature of Atman as nondual and undefinable.{{sfn|Murthi|2009|pp=158-159}} In this method, "That which cannot be expressed is expressed through false attribution and subsequent denial."{{sfn|Shah-Kazemi|2006|p=5}} As Shankara writes, "First let me bring them on the right path, and then I will gradually be able to bring them round to the final truth afterwards."{{sfn|Shah-Kazemi|2006|p=5}} For example, Atman, the real "I," is described as witness, giving "it" an attribute to separate it from non-self. Since this implies a duality between observer and observed, next the notion of "witness" is dropped, by showing that the Self cannot be seen and is beyond qualifications, and only that what is remains, without using any words:WEB,weblink adhyAropa apavAda, 29 January 2022, 29 January 2022,weblink live, {{blockquote|After one separates oneself i.e. 'I' or Atman from the sense objects, the qualities superimposed on Self are also negated by saying that which not being and not non-being, cannot be described by words, without beginning and end (BG 13.32) or as in Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahman, beyond words, beyond mind and speech, etc. Here there is an attempt to negate the earlier attribute like being witness, bliss, most subtlest, etc. After this negation of false superimposition, Self Alone shines. One enters into the state of Nirvikalp Samadhi, where there is no second, no one to experience and hence this state cannot be described in words.}}The Mahavyakas - the identity of Ätman and BrahmanMoksha, liberation from suffering and rebirth and attaining immortality, is attained by disidentification from the body-mind complex and gaining self-knowledge as being in essence Atman, and attaining knowledge of the identity of Atman and Brahman.{{sfn|Comans|2000|p=183}}{{sfn|Rambachan|2006|p=26}} According to Shankara, the individual Ätman and Brahman seem different at the empirical level of reality, but this difference is only an illusion, and at the highest level of reality they are really identical.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=14}} The real self is Sat, "the Existent," that is, Atman-Brahman.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=12, 172}}{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|p=49}}{{refn|group=note|name=Brahman}} Whereas the difference between Atman and non-Atman is deemed self-evident, knowledge of the identity of Atman and Brahman is revealed by the shruti, especially the Upanishadic statement tat tvam asi.MahavakyasAccording to Shankara, a large number of Upanishadic statements reveal the identity of Atman and Brahman. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, four of those statements, the Mahavakyas, which are taken literal, in contrast to other statements, have a special importance in revealing this identity.{{sfn|Long|2020|p=245}}{{sfn|Braue|1984|p=81}} They are:
That you areThe longest chapter of Shankara's Upadesasahasri, chapter 18, "That Art Thou," is devoted to considerations on the insight "I am ever-free, the existent" (sat), and the identity expressed in Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 in the mahavakya (great sentence) "tat tvam asi", "that thou art."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=50, 172}}{{sfn|Lipner|2000|p=57}} In this statement, according to Shankara, tat refers to 'Sat,{{sfn|Lipner|2000|p=57}} "the Existent"{{sfn|Lipner|2000|pp=55 note 9; 57}}{{sfn|Deutsch|Dalvi|2004|p=8}}{{sfn|Olivelle|2008|p=151-152}}{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=172, Up.18.3, 18.6, 18.7}} Existence, Being,WEB,weblink Topic: CHAPTER 6 - SECTION 8, April 7, 2019, Shankarabhashya.com, 4 January 2022, 9 February 2022,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20220209212211weblink">weblink live, or Brahman,{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=172, Up.18.6}} the Real, the "Root of the world,"{{sfn|Lipner|2000|p=57}}{{refn|group=note|While the Vedanta tradition equates sat ("the Existent") with Brahman, the Chandogya Upanishad itself does not refer to Brahman.{{sfn|Deutsch|Dalvi|2004|p=8}}{{sfn|Black|2012|p=36}} {{harvtxt|Deutsch|Dalvi|2004|p=8}}: "Although the text does not use the term brahman, the Vedanta tradition is that the Existent (sat) referred to is no other than Brahman."}} the true essence or root or origin of everything that exists.{{sfn|Deutsch|Dalvi|2004|p=8}}{{sfn|Olivelle|2008|p=151-152}} "Tvam" refers to one's real I, pratyagatman or inner Self,{{sfn|Lipner|2000|pp=60, 62}} the "direct Witness within everything,"{{sfn|Lipner|2000|p=60}} "free from caste, family, and purifying ceremonies,"{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=218 (up.II.1.24)}} the essence, Atman, which the individual at the core is.{{sfnp|Muller|1879|pp=92-109 with footnotes}}{{sfn|Goodall|1996|pp=136â137}} As Shankara states in the Upadesasahasri: {{blockquote|Up.I.174: "Through such sentences as "Thou art That" one knows one's own Atman, the Witness of all the internal organs." Up.I.18.190: "Through such sentences as "[Thou art] the Existent" [...] right knowledge concerning the inner Atman will become clearer." Up.I.18.193-194: "In the sentence "Thou art That" [...] [t]he word "That" means inner Atman."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=190-192}}}}The statement "tat tvam asi" sheds the false notion that Atman is different from Brahman.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=91; 219 (Up.II.1.28)}} According toNakamura, the non-duality of atman and Brahman "is a famous characteristic of Sankara's thought, but it was already taught by Sundarapandya"{{sfn|Nakamura|1999|p=675}} (c.600 CE or earlier).{{sfn|Nakamura|1999|p=176}} Shankara cites Sundarapandya in his comments to Brahma Sutra verse I.1.4:{{blockquote|When the metaphorical or false atman is non-existent, [the ideas of my] child, [my] body are sublated. Therefore, when it is realized that 'I am the existent Brahman, atman', how can anyduty exist?{{sfn|Nakamura|1999|p=178}}}}From this, and a large number of other accordances, Nakamura concludes that Shankar was not an original thinker, but "a synthesizer of existing Advaita and the rejuvenator, as well as a defender, of ancient learning."{{sfn|Nakamura|1999|p=679}}Direct perception versus contemplation of the MahavakyasIn the Upadesasahasri Shankara, Shankara is ambivalent on the need for meditation on the Upanishadic mahavakya. He states that "right knowledge arises at the moment of hearing,"{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=182 (Up.I.18.103-104)}} and rejects prasamcaksa or prasamkhyana meditation, that is, meditation on the meaning of the sentences, and in Up.II.3 recommends parisamkhyana,{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=173-174 (Up.I.18.9-19); p.196 note 13}} separating Atman from everything that is not Atman, that is, the sense-objects and sense-organs, and the pleasant and unpleasant things and merit and demerit connected with them.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=251-253 (Up.II.3)}} Yet, Shankara then concludes with declaring that only Atman exists, stating that "all the sentences of the Upanishads concerning non-duality of Atman should be fully contemplated, should be contemplated."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=253 (Up.II.3)}} As Mayeda states, "how they [prasamcaksa or prasamkhyana versus parisamkhyana] differ from each other in not known."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=196 note 13}}Prasamkhyana was advocated by Mandana Misra,{{sfn|Rambachan|1991|p=155}} the older contemporary of Shankara who was the most influential Advaitin until the 10th century.{{sfn|King|2002|p=128}}{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|pp=33-34}}{{refn|group=note|name="Influence_of_Shankara"}} "According to Mandana, the mahavakyas are incapable, by themselves, of bringing about brahmajnana. The Vedanta-vakyas convey an indirect knowledge which is made direct only by deep meditation (prasamkhyana). The latter is a continuous contemplation of the purport of the mahavakyas.{{sfn|Rambachan|1991|pp=155-156}} VÄcaspati MiÅra, a student of Mandana Misra, agreed with Mandana Misra, and their stance is defended by the Bhamati-school, founded by VÄcaspati MiÅra.{{sfn|Rambachan|1991|p=156}} In contrast, the Vivarana school founded by Prakasatman (c. 1200â1300){{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=40}} follows Shankara closely, arguing that the mahavakyas are the direct cause of gaining knowledge.{{sfn|Cenkner|1995|p=95}}Shankara's insistence on direct knowledge as liberating also differs from the asparsa yoga described in Gaudapada's Mandukyakarika III.39-46.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=367}} In this practice of 'non-contact' (a-sparÅa), the mind is controlled and brought to rest, and does not create "things" (appearances) after which it grasps; it becomes non-dual, free from the subject-[grasping]-object dualism.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|pp=365-366}}{{sfn|Reddy Juturi|2021}} Knowing that only Atman-Brahman is real, the creations of the mind are seen as false appearances (MK III.31-33). When the mind is brought to rest, it becomes or is Brahman (MK III.46).{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=367}}Renouncement of ritualismIn the Upadesasahasri Shankara discourages ritual worship such as oblations to Deva (God), because that assumes the Self within is different from Brahman.{{refn|group=note|name="ritualism"|Shankara, himself, had renounced all religious ritual acts;{{sfn|Potter|2008|p=16}}For an example of Shankara's reasoning "why rites and ritual actions should be given up",Karl Potter on p. 220;{{full citation needed|date=February 2022}} Elsewhere, Shankara's Bhasya on various Upanishads repeat "give up rituals and rites".BOOK, Shankara's Bhasya on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, S Madhavananda, 1950,weblink 348â350, 754â757, }}{{refn |group=note |name="Mookerji" |1=Compare {{harvnb|Mookerji|2011}} on SvÄdhyÄya (Vedic learning). {{harvtxt|Mookerji|2011|pp=29â31}} notes that the Rigveda, and Sayana's commentary, contain passages criticizing as fruitless mere recitation of the Åik (words) without understanding their inner meaning or essence, the knowledge of dharma and Parabrahman. {{harvtxt|Mookerji|2011|pp=29, 34}} concludes that in the Rigvedic education of the mantras "the contemplation and comprehension of their meaning was considered as more important and vital to education than their mere mechanical repetition and correct pronunciation." {{harvtxt|Mookerji|2011|p=35}} refers to Sayana as stating that "the mastery of texts, akshara-praptÄ«, is followed by artha-bodha, perception of their meaning." (Artha may also mean "goal, purpose or essence," depending on the context.{{sfn|Potter|1998|p=610 (note 17)}}WEB,weblink artha, Sanskrit English Dictionary, University of Koeln, Germany, deviated,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20150607221225weblink">weblink 2015-06-07, ) According to {{harvtxt|Mookerji|2011|p=36}}, "the realization of Truth" and the knowledge of paramatman as revealed to the rishis is the real aim of Vedic learning, and not the mere recitation of texts.}} The "doctrine of difference" is wrong, asserts Shankara, because, "he who knows the Brahman is one and he is another, does not know Brahman".{{sfn|Åaá¹ karÄcÄrya|1949|pp=16â17}}{{sfn|Potter|2008|pp=219â221}} The false notion that Atman is different from Brahman{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=91; 219 (Up.II.1.28)}} is connected with the novice's conviction that (Upadesasaharsi II.1.25){{blockquote|...I am one [and] He is another; I am ignorant, experience pleasure and pain, am bound and a transmigrator [whereas] he is essentially different from me, the god not subject to transmigration. By worshipping Him with oblation, offerings, homage and the like through the [performance of] the actions prescribed for [my] class and stage of life, I wish to get out of the ocean of transmigratory existence. How am I he?{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=91, 218}}}}Recognizing oneself as "the Existent-Brahman," which is mediated by scriptural teachings, is contrasted with the notion of "I act," which is mediated by relying on sense-perception and the like.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=172-173 (Up.I.18.3-8)}} According to Shankara, the statement "Thou art That" "remove[s] the delusion of a hearer,"{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=183 (Up.I.18.99-100)}} "so through sentences as "Thou art That" one knows one's own Atman, the witness of all internal organs,"{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=190 (Up.I.18.174)}} and not from any actions.{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=192 (Up.I.18.196-197); p.195 (Up.I.18.2019)}}{{refn|group=note|Up.I.18.219: "The renunciation of all actions becomes the means for discriminating the meaning of the word "Thou" since there is an [Upanisadic] teaching, "Having become calm, self-controlled [..., one sees Atman there in oneself]" (Bhr. Up. IV, 4, 23)."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=195 (Up.I.18.2019)}}}} With this realization, the performance of rituals is prohibited, "since [the use of] rituals and their requisites is contradictory to the realization of the identity [of Atman] with the highest Atman."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=85, 220 (Up.II.1.30)}}EthicsSome claim, states Deutsch, "that Advaita turns its back on all theoretical and practical considerations of morality and, if not unethical, is at least 'a-ethical' in character".{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|p=99}} However, Deutsch adds, ethics does have a firm place in this philosophy. Its ideology is permeated with ethics and value questions enter into every metaphysical and epistemological analysis, and it considers "an independent, separate treatment of ethics are unnecessary".{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|p=99}}JOURNAL, Bauer, Nancy F., Advaita Vedanta and Contemporary Western Ethics, Philosophy East and West, University of Hawaii Press, 37, 1, 1987, 36â50, 10.2307/1399082, 1399082, According to Advaita VedÄnta, states Deutsch, there cannot be "any absolute moral laws, principles or duties", instead in its axiological view Atman is "beyond good and evil", and all values result from self-knowledge of the reality of "distinctionless Oneness" of one's real self, every other being and all manifestations of Brahman.{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|p=100}} Advaitin ethics includes lack of craving, lack of dual distinctions between one's own Self and another being's, good and just Karma.{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|pp=101â102 with footnotes}}The values and ethics in Advaita VedÄnta emanate from what it views as inherent in the state of liberating self-knowledge. This state, according to Rambachan, includes and leads to the understanding that "the self is the self of all, the knower of self sees the self in all beings and all beings in the self."{{sfn|Rambachan|2006|pp=109â111}} Such knowledge and understanding of the indivisibility of one's and other's Atman, Advaitins believe leads to "a deeper identity and affinity with all". It does not alienate or separate an Advaitin from his or her community, rather awakens "the truth of life's unity and interrelatedness".{{sfn|Rambachan|2006|pp=109â111}} These ideas are exemplified in the Isha Upanishad â a sruti for Advaita, as follows:{{Blockquote|One who sees all beings in the self alone, and the self of all beings,feels no hatred by virtue of that understanding.For the seer of oneness, who knows all beings to be the self,where is delusion and sorrow? | Isha Upanishad 6â7>Translated by A Rambachan{{sfn | 2006|p=109}}}}Adi Shankara, in verse 1.25 to 1.26 of his UpadeÅasÄhasrÄ«, asserts that the Self-knowledge is understood and realized when one's mind is purified by the observation of Yamas (ethical precepts) such as Ahimsa (non-violence, abstinence from injuring others in body, mind and thoughts), Satya (truth, abstinence from falsehood), Asteya (abstinence from theft), Aparigraha (abstinence from possessiveness and craving) and a simple life of meditation and reflection.{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=88â89}} Rituals and rites can help focus and prepare the mind for the journey to Self-knowledge,{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|p=92}} but can be abandoned when moving on to "hearing, reflection, and meditation on the Upanishads."{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=33}}Elsewhere, in verses 1.26â1.28, the Advaita text Upadesasahasri states the ethical premise of equality of all beings. Any Bheda (discrimination), states Shankara, based on class or caste or parentage is a mark of inner error and lack of liberating knowledge.{{sfn|Åaá¹ karÄcÄrya|1949|pp=17â19}} This text states that the fully liberated person understands and practices the ethics of non-difference.{{sfn|Åaá¹ karÄcÄrya|1949|pp=17â19}}{{Blockquote|One, who is eager to realize this highest truth spoken of in the Sruti, should rise above the fivefold form of desire: for a son, for wealth, for this world and the next, and are the outcome of a false reference to the Self of Varna (castes, colors, classes) and orders of life. These references are contradictory to right knowledge, and reasons are given by the Srutis regarding the prohibition of the acceptance of difference. For when the knowledge that the one non-dual Atman (Self) is beyond phenomenal existence is generated by the scriptures and reasoning, there cannot exist a knowledge side by side that is contradictory or contrary to it. | {{sfn | 2006 | Åaá¹ karÄcÄrya | p=32}};Sanskrit: तà¤à¥ à¤à¥à¤¤à¤¤à¥ परमारà¥à¤¥à¤¦à¤°à¥à¤¶à¤¨à¤ पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤ªà¤¤à¥à¤¤à¥à¤®à¤¿à¤à¥à¤à¤¤à¤¾ वरà¥à¤£à¤¾à¤¶à¥à¤°à¤®à¤¾à¤¦à¥à¤¯à¤à¤¿à¤®à¤¾à¤¨-à¤à¥à¤¤à¤ªà¤¾à¤à¥à¤à¥à¤¤à¤°à¥à¤ªà¤ªà¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤²à¥à¤à¥à¤·à¤£à¤¾à¤¦à¤¿à¤à¥à¤¯à¥ वà¥à¤¯à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¨à¤ à¤à¤°à¥à¤¤à¤µà¥à¤¯à¤®à¥ । समà¥à¤¯à¤à¥à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¤¯à¤µà¤¿à¤°à¥à¤§à¤¾à¤¤à¥ तदà¤à¤¿à¤®à¤¾à¤¨à¤¸à¥à¤¯ à¤à¥à¤¦à¤¦à¤°à¥à¤¶à¤¨à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤·à¥à¤§à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¥à¤ªà¤ªà¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤¿à¤¶à¥à¤à¥à¤ªà¤ªà¤¦à¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥ । न हà¥à¤¯à¥à¤à¤¸à¥à¤®à¤¿à¤¨à¥à¤¨à¤¾à¤¤à¥à¤®à¤¨à¥à¤¯à¤¸à¤à¤¸à¤¾à¤°à¤¿à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤¬à¥à¤¦à¥à¤§à¥ शासà¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤¨à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¥à¤¤à¥à¤ªà¤¾à¤¦à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾à¤ तदà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤ªà¤°à¥à¤¤à¤¾ बà¥à¤¦à¥à¤§à¤¿à¤°à¥à¤à¤µà¤¤à¤¿ । न हà¥à¤¯à¥ à¤
à¤à¥à¤¨à¥ शिततà¥à¤µà¤¬à¥à¤¦à¥à¤§à¤¿à¤, शरà¥à¤°à¥ वाà¤à¤°à¤¾à¤®à¤°à¤£à¤¬à¥à¤¦à¥à¤§à¤¿à¤ । तसà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤¦à¤µà¤¿à¤¦à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤¤à¥ सरà¥à¤µà¤à¤°à¥à¤®à¤£à¤¾à¤ ततà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤§à¤¨à¤¾à¤¨à¤¾à¤ ठयà¤à¥à¤à¥à¤ªà¤µà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¦à¥à¤¨à¤¾à¤ परमारà¥à¤¥à¤¦à¤°à¥à¤¶à¤¨à¤¿à¤·à¥à¤à¥à¤¨ तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤à¤ à¤à¤°à¥à¤¤à¤µà¥à¤¯à¤ ॥ ४४॥}}TextsThe Upanishads, the Bhagavad GitÄ and Brahma Sutras are the central texts of the Advaita VedÄnta tradition, lending authority to the doctrines about the identity of Atman and Brahman and their changeless nature.{{sfn|Koller|2013|pp=100â101}}{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=35}}Adi Shankara gave a nondualist interpretation of these texts in his commentaries. Adi Shankara's Bhashya (commentaries) have become central texts in the Advaita VedÄnta philosophy, but are one among many ancient and medieval manuscripts available or accepted in this tradition.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|pp=221, 680}} The subsequent Advaita tradition has further elaborated on these sruti and commentaries. Adi Shankara is also credited for the famous text Nirvana Shatakam.PrasthanatrayiThe VedÄnta tradition provides exegeses of the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras, and the Bhagavadgita, collectively called the Prasthanatrayi, literally, three sources.{{sfn|Grimes|1990|pp=6â7}}{{sfn|Koller|2013|pp=100â101}}{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=35}}
Textual authorityThe Advaita VedÄnta tradition considers the knowledge claims in the Vedas to be the crucial part of the Vedas, not its karma-kanda (ritual injunctions).{{sfn|Koller|2013|pp=100â101}} The knowledge claims about self being identical to the nature of Atman-Brahman are found in the Upanishads, which Advaita VedÄnta has regarded as "errorless revealed truth."{{sfn|Koller|2013|pp=100â101}} Nevertheless, states Koller, Advaita Vedantins did not entirely rely on revelation, but critically examined their teachings using reason and experience, and this led them to investigate and critique competing theories.{{sfn|Koller|2013|pp=100â101}}Advaita VedÄnta, like all orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, accepts as an epistemic premise that Åruti (Vedic literature) is a reliable source of knowledge.{{sfn|Klostermaier|2007|p=26}}{{sfn|Coburn|1984|p=439}}{{sfn|Deutsch|2000|p=245â248}} The Åruti includes the four Vedas including its four layers of embedded texts â the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the early Upanishads.Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty (1988), Textual Sources for the Study of Hinduism, Manchester University Press, {{ISBN|0-7190-1867-6}}, pp. 2â3 Of these, the Upanishads are the most referred to texts in the Advaita school.The possibility of different interpretations of the Vedic literature, states Arvind Sharma, was recognized by ancient Indian scholars.{{sfn|Sharma|2007|p=17â19, 22â34}}{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|pp=35â36, 77, 210â212}} The Brahmasutra (also called VedÄnta Sutra, composed in 1st millennium BCE) accepted this in verse 1.1.4 and asserts the need for the Upanishadic teachings to be understood not in piecemeal cherrypicked basis, rather in a unified way wherein the ideas in the Vedic texts are harmonized with other means of knowledge such as perception, inference and remaining pramanas.{{sfn|Sharma|2007|p=17â19, 22â34}}{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|pp=35â36}} This theme has been central to the Advaita school, making the Brahmasutra as a common reference and a consolidated textual authority for Advaita.{{sfn|Sharma|2007|p=17â19, 22â34}}{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=6â7}}The Bhagavad GitÄ, similarly in parts can be interpreted to be a monist Advaita text, and in other parts as theistic Dvaita text. It too has been widely studied by Advaita scholars, including a commentary by Adi Shankara.{{sfn|Rambachan|1991|pp=xiiâxiii}}{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|pp=35â36, 77, 210â212}}Other textsA large number of texts are attributed to Shankara; of these texts, the Brahma Sutra Bhasya (commentary on the Brahma Sutras), the commentaries on the principal Upanishads, and the Upadesasahasri are considered genuine and stand out. Post-Shankara Advaita saw the composition of both scholarly commentaries and treatises, as well as, from late medieaval times (14th century) on, popular works and compositions which incorporate Yoga ideas. These include notable texts mistakenly attributed to Shankara, such as the Vivekachudamani, Atma bodha, and Aparokshanubhuti; and other texts like Advaita Bodha Deepika and DÅg-DÅÅya-Viveka. Texts which influenced the Advaita tradition include the Avadhuta Gita, the Yoga Vasistha, and the Yoga Yajnavalkya.Sampradaya and Smarta traditionMonastic order - Mathas{{See also|Dashanami Sampradaya}}File:Vidyashankara Temple at Shringeri.jpg|thumb|(Vidyashankara temple) at Sringeri Sharada Peetham, ShringeriShringeriAdvaita VedÄnta is not just a philosophical system, but also a tradition of renunciation. Philosophy and renunciation are closely related:{{blockquote|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.}}According to tradition, around 740 AD Gaudapada founded Shri Gaudapadacharya Math{{refn|group=note|, {{IAST|ÅrÄ« SansthÄna Gauá¸apadÄcÄrya Maá¹ha}}}}, also known as {{IAST|Kavaá¸·Ä maá¹ha}}. It is located in Kavale, Ponda, Goa,WEB,weblink Asram Vidya Order, Biographical Notes About Sankara And Gaudapada, 14 July 2011, 9 August 2020,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20200809145405weblink">weblink live, and is the oldest matha of the South Indian Saraswat Brahmins.BOOK, Shri Gowdapadacharya & Shri Kavale Math (A Commemoration volume), 10, weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20150924101459weblink">Kavale Math Official WebsiteShankara, himself considered to be an incarnation of Shiva, is credited with establishing the Dashanami Sampradaya, organizing a section of the Ekadandi monks under an umbrella grouping of ten names.Sankara Acarya Biography â Monastic Tradition {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120508091224weblink |date=8 May 2012}} Several Hindu monastic and Ekadandi traditions, however, remained outside the organisation of the DasanÄmis.Karigoudar Ishwaran, Ascetic CultureWendy Sinclair-Brull, Female AsceticsH.A. Rose, Ibbetson, Denzil Ibbetson Sir, and Maclagan, Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, p. 857Sankara is said to have organised the Hindu monks of these ten sects or names under four {{IAST|Maá¹has}} (Sanskrit: ) (monasteries), called the Amnaya Mathas, with the headquarters at DvÄrakÄ in the West, Jagannatha Puri in the East, Sringeri in the South and Badrikashrama in the North. According to tradition, each math was first headed by one of his four main disciples, and the tradition continues since then. Yet, according to Paul Hacker, no mention of the mathas can be found before the 14th century CE.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=28}} Until the 15th century, the timespan of the directors of Sringeri Math are unrealistically long, spanning 60+ and even 105 years. After 1386, the timespans become much shorter.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=28-29}} According to Hacker, these mathas may have originated as late as the 14th century, to propagate Shankara's view of Advaita.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29}}{{refn|group=note|Nakamura also recognized the influence of these mathas, which he argues contributed to the influence of Shankara, which was "due to institutional factors". The mathas which he established remain active 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".{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|pp=680â681}}}}{{refn|group=note|According to Pandey, these Mathas were not established by Shankara himself, but were originally ashrams established by VibhÄÅdaka and his son ÅÈyaÅÅnga.{{sfn|Pandey|2000|pp=4â5}} Shankara inherited the ashrams at DvÄrakÄ and Sringeri, and shifted the ashram at ÅÅngaverapura to BadarikÄÅrama, and the ashram at AngadeÅa to JagannÄtha PurÄ«.{{sfn|Pandey|2000|p=5}}}} According to another 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.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 attributed to Shankara. While the dasanÄmis associated with the Sankara maths follow the procedures attributed to Adi Åankara, 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,{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|pp=782â783}} despite the historical links with Shaivism.{{refn|group=note|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."}} Nevertheless, contemporary Sankaracaryas have more influence among Saiva communities than among Vaisnava communities.Smarta TraditionThe Smarta tradition of Hinduism is a synthesis of various strands of Indian religious thought and practice, which developed with the Hindu synthesis, dating back to the early first century CE.{{refn|group=note|Archeological evidence suggest that the Smarta tradition in India dates back to at least 3rd-century CE.BOOK, Frederick Asher, Joanna Gottfried Williams, KalÄdarÅana: American Studies in the Art of India, 1981, BRILL Academic, 90-04-06498-2, 1â4,weblink 9 February 2017, 16 January 2024,weblink live, }} It is particularly found in south and west India, and revers all Hindu divinities as a step in their spiritual pursuit.{{sfn|Doniger|1999|p=1017}} Their worship practice is called Panchayatana puja.BOOK, Gudrun Bühnemann, Mandalas and Yantras in the Hindu Traditions,weblink 2003, BRILL Academic, 978-9004129023, 60â61, 9 February 2017, 16 January 2024,weblink live, BOOK, James C. Harle, The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, 1994, Yale University Press, 978-0-300-06217-5,weblink registration, 140â142, 191, 201â203, The worship symbolically consists of five deities: Shiva, Vishnu, Devi or Durga, Surya and an Ishta Devata or any personal god of devotee's preference.{{harvnb|Flood|1996|p=17}}BOOK, Diana L. Eck, DarÅan: Seeing the Divine Image in India, 1998, Columbia University Press, 978-0-231-11265-9, 49,weblink 9 February 2017, 16 January 2024,weblink live, In the Smarta tradition, Advaita VedÄnta ideas combined with bhakti are its foundation. Adi Shankara is regarded as the greatest teacher{{sfn|Doniger|1999|p=1017}} and reformer of the Smarta.{{sfn|Rosen|2006|p=166}} According to Alf Hiltebeitel, Shankara's Advaita VedÄnta and practices became the doctrinal unifier of previously conflicting practices with the smarta tradition.{{refn|group=note|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").{{sfn|Hiltebeitel|2013}}}}Philosophically, the Smarta tradition emphasizes that all images and statues (murti), or just five marks or any anicons on the ground, are visibly convenient icons of spirituality saguna Brahman. The multiple icons are seen as multiple representations of the same idea, rather than as distinct beings. These serve as a step and means to realizing the abstract Ultimate Reality called nirguna Brahman. The ultimate goal in this practice is to transition past the use of icons, then follow a philosophical and meditative path to understanding the oneness of Atman (Self) and Brahman â as "That art Thou".The Four Denominations of Hinduism {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180618033816weblink |date=18 June 2018 }}, Basics of Hinduism, Kauai Hindu MonasteryFalk Reitz (1997), Pancayatana-Komplexe in Nordindien: Entstehung, Entwicklung und regionale Besonderheiten einer indischen Architekturform {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161009000103weblink |date=9 October 2016 }}, PhD Thesis (in German), Awarded by Freie Universität BerlinBuddhist influencesSimilaritiesAdvaita VedÄnta and various other schools of Hindu philosophy share numerous terminology, doctrines and dialectical techniques with Buddhism.{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=172}}{{sfn|Deutsch|Dalvi|2004|pp=126, 157}} According to a 1918 paper by the Buddhism scholar O. Rozenberg, "a precise differentiation between Brahmanism and Buddhism is impossible to draw."{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=172}} Murti notices that "the ultimate goal" of Vedanta, Samkhya and Mahayana Buddhism is "remarkably similar"; while Advaita Vedanta postulates a "foundational self," "Mahayana Buddhism implicitly affirms the existence of a deep underlying reality behind all empirical manifestations in its conception of sunyata (the indeterminate, the void), or vijnapti-matrata (consciousness only), or tathata (thatness), or dharmata (noumenal reality)."{{sfn|Murti|1983|p=339}} According to Frank Whaling, the similarities between Advaita VedÄnta and Buddhism are not limited to the terminology and some doctrines, but also includes practice. The monastic practices and monk tradition in Advaita are similar to those found in Buddhism.{{sfn|Whaling|1979|pp=1â42}}Mahayana influencesThe influence of Mahayana Buddhism on Advaita VedÄnta has been significant.{{sfn|Whaling|1979|pp=1â42}}{{sfn|Grimes|1998|pp=684â686}} Sharma points out that the early commentators on the Brahma Sutras were all realists, or pantheist realists. He states that they were influenced by Buddhism, particularly during the 5th-6th centuries CE when Buddhist thought developing in the Yogacara school.{{sfn|Sharma, B.N.|2000|p=60â63}}Von Glasenap states that there was a mutual influence between Vedanta and Buddhism.Helmuth Von Glasenapp (1995), Vedanta & Buddhism: A comparative study, Buddhist Publication Society, pages 2-3, Quote: "Vedanta and Buddhism have lived side by side for such a long time that obviously they must have influenced each other. The strong predilection of the Indian mind for a doctrine of universal unity has led the representatives of Mahayana to conceive Samsara and Nirvana as two aspects of the same and single true reality; for Nagarjuna the empirical world is a mere appearance, as all dharmas, manifest in it, are perishable and conditioned by other dharmas, without having any independent existence of their own. Only the indefinable "Voidness" (Sunyata) to be grasped in meditation, and realized in Nirvana, has true reality [in Buddhism]". Dasgupta and Mohanta suggest that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita VedÄnta represent "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara."{{sfn|Dasgupta|Mohanta|1998|p=362}}{{refn|group=note|This development did not end with Advaita Vedanta, but continued in Tantrism and various schools of Shaivism. Non-dual Kashmir Shaivism, for example, was influenced by, and took over doctrines from, several orthodox and heterodox Indian religious and philosophical traditions.{{sfn|Muller-Ortega|2010|p=25}} These include Vedanta, Samkhya, Patanjali Yoga and Nyayas, and various Buddhist schools, including Yogacara and Madhyamika,{{sfn|Muller-Ortega|2010|p=25}} but also Tantra and the Nath-tradition.{{sfn|Muller-Ortega|2010|p=26}}}}The influence of Buddhist doctrines on Gauá¸apÄda has been a vexed question.{{sfn|Potter|1981|p=105}}{{sfn|Comans|2000|p=2}} Modern scholarship generally accepts that Gauá¸apÄda was influenced by Buddhism, at least in terms of using Buddhist terminology to explain his ideas, but adds that Gauá¸apÄda was a Vedantin and not a Buddhist.{{sfn|Potter|1981|p=105}}Adi Shankara, states Natalia Isaeva, incorporated "into his own system a Buddhist notion of maya which had not been minutely elaborated in the Upanishads".{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=172}} According to Mudgal, Shankara's Advaita and the Buddhist Madhyamaka view of ultimate reality are compatible because they are both transcendental, indescribable, non-dual and only arrived at through a via negativa (neti neti). Mudgal concludes therefore that "the difference between Sunyavada (Mahayana) philosophy of Buddhism and Advaita philosophy of Hinduism may be a matter of emphasis, not of kind.{{sfn|Mudgal|1975|p=4}} Similarly, there are many points of contact between Buddhism's Vijnanavada and Shankara's Advaita.{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=174}} According to S.N. Dasgupta,{{blockquote|Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the sunya of Nagarjuna [...] The debts of Shankara to the self-luminosity{{refn|group=note|name=self-luminous}} of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Shankara by Vijnana Bhiksu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Shankara's philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavada and Sunyavada Buddhism with the Upanisad notion of the permanence of self superadded.{{sfn|Dasgupta|1997|page=494}}}}Differences from BuddhismThe Advaita VedÄnta tradition has historically rejected accusations of crypto-Buddhism highlighting their respective views on Atman, Anatta and Brahman.{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|pp=60, 145â154}} Yet, some Buddhist texts chronologically placed in the 1st millennium of common era, such as the Mahayana tradition's TathÄgatagarbha sÅ«tras suggest self-like concepts, variously called TathÄgatagarbha or Buddha nature.{{sfn|Williams|2008|pp=104, 125â127}}{{sfn|Hookham|1991|pp=100â104}} In modern era studies, scholars such as Wayman and Wayman state that these "self-like" concepts are neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality.{{sfn|Williams|2008|pp=107, 112}}{{sfn|Hookham|1991|p=96}} Some scholars posit that the TathÄgatagarbha Sutras were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists.{{harvnb|Williams|2008|pp=104â105, 108â109}}: "(...) it refers to the Buddha using the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics."BOOK, Merv Fowler, Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices,weblink 1999, Sussex Academic Press, 978-1-898723-66-0, 101â102, {{Dead link|date=August 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}BOOK, John W. Pettit, Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzogchen, the Great Perfection, 1999, Simon and Schuster, 978-0-86171-157-4, 48â49,weblink 2 February 2017, 16 January 2024,weblink live, The epistemological foundations of Buddhism and Advaita VedÄnta are different. Buddhism accepts two valid means to reliable and correct knowledge â perception and inference, while Advaita VedÄnta accepts six (described elsewhere in this article).{{sfn|Grimes|1996|p=238}}JOURNAL, D Sharma, 1966, Epistemological negative dialectics of Indian logic â AbhÄva versus Anupalabdhi, Indo-Iranian Journal, 9, 4, 291â300, 10.1163/000000066790086530, John Clayton (2010), Religions, Reasons and Gods: Essays in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Religion, Cambridge University Press, {{ISBN|978-0521126274}}, p. 54 However, some Buddhists in history, have argued that Buddhist scriptures are a reliable source of spiritual knowledge, corresponding to Advaita's Åabda pramana, however Buddhists have treated their scriptures as a form of inference method.Alex Wayman (1999), A Millennium of Buddhist Logic, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120816466}}, pp. xixâxxAdvaita VedÄnta posits a substance ontology, an ontology which holds that underlying the change and impermanence of empirical reality is an unchanging and permanent absolute reality, like an eternal substance it calls Atman-Brahman.{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|pp=49â50, 60â62}} In its substance ontology, as like other philosophies, there exist a universal, particulars and specific properties and it is the interaction of particulars that create events and processes. In contrast, Buddhism posits a process ontology, also called as "event ontology".{{sfn|Williams|Tribe|Wynne|2000|p=92}}BOOK, Christopher Bartley, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy,weblink 2011, Bloomsbury Academic, 978-1-84706-449-3, 90â91, According to the Buddhist thought, particularly after the rise of ancient Mahayana Buddhism scholarship, there is neither empirical nor absolute permanent reality and ontology can be explained as a process.{{sfn|Williams|Tribe|Wynne|2000|p=92}}{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|pp=40â50, 60â62, 97}}{{refn|group=note|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.{{sfn|Kalupahana|1994}}}} There is a system of relations and interdependent phenomena (pratitya samutpada) in Buddhist ontology, but no stable persistent identities, no eternal universals nor particulars. Thought and memories are mental constructions and fluid processes without a real observer, personal agency or cognizer in Buddhism. In contrast, in Advaita VedÄnta, like other schools of Hinduism, the concept of self (atman) is the real on-looker, personal agent and cognizer.BOOK, Christopher Bartley, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy,weblink 2011, Bloomsbury Academic, 978-1-84706-449-3, 90â91, 96, 204â208,Criticisms of concurring Hindu schoolsSome Hindu scholars criticized Advaita for its Maya and non-theistic doctrinal similarities with Buddhism.Julius Lipner (1986), The Face of Truth: A Study of Meaning and Metaphysics in the Vedantic Theology of RÄmÄnuja, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0887060397}}, pp. 120â123{{sfn|Whaling|1979|pp=1â42}} sometimes referring to the Advaita-tradition as MÄyÄvÄda.{{refn|{{harvnb|Hacker|1995|p=78}}; {{harvnb|Lorenzen|2015}}; {{harvnb|Baird|1986}}; {{harvnb|Goswami Abhay Charan Bhaktivedanta|1956}}}}Ramanuja, the founder of Vishishtadvaita VedÄnta, accused Adi Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a "crypto-Buddhist",{{sfn|Biderman|1978|pp=405â413}} and someone who was undermining theistic Bhakti devotionalism.{{sfn|Whaling|1979|pp=1â42}} The non-Advaita scholar Bhaskara of the Bhedabheda VedÄnta tradition, similarly around 800 CE, accused Shankara's Advaita as "this despicable broken down Mayavada that has been chanted by the Mahayana Buddhists", and a school that is undermining the ritual duties set in Vedic orthodoxy.{{sfn|Whaling|1979|pp=1â42}}Relationship with other forms of VedÄntaThe Advaita VedÄnta ideas, particularly of 8th century Adi Shankara, were challenged by theistic VedÄnta philosophies that emerged centuries later, such as the 11th-century Vishishtadvaita (qualified nondualism) of Ramanuja, and the 14th-century Dvaita (theistic dualism) of Madhvacharya.{{sfn|Fowler|2002|pp=238â243, 288â294, 340â342}} Their application of Vedanta philosophy to ground their faith turned Vedanta into a major factor in India's religious landscape.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|pp=691-693}}VishishtadvaitaRamanuja's Vishishtadvaita school and Shankara's Advaita school are both nondualism VedÄnta schools,J.A.B. van Buitenen (2008), Ramanuja â Hindu theologian and Philosopher {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220621165517weblink |date=21 June 2022 }}, Encyclopædia Britannica both are premised on the assumption that all Selfs can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation; in contrast, Madhvacharya and his Dvaita subschool of VedÄnta believed that some Selfs are eternally doomed and damned.{{sfn|Sarma|1994|pp=374â375}}BOOK, Edwin, Bryant, Krishna : A Sourcebook (Chapter 15 by Deepak Sarma), Oxford University Press, 2007, 978-0195148923, 361â362, Shankara's theory posits that only Brahman and causes are metaphysical unchanging reality, while the empirical world (Maya) and observed effects are changing, illusive and of relative existence.BOOK, Jon Paul Sydnor, Ramanuja and Schleiermacher: Toward a Constructive Comparative Theology,weblink 2012, Casemate, 978-0227680247, 84â87, 21 September 2016, 16 January 2024,weblink live, BOOK, Joseph P. Schultz, Judaism and the Gentile Faiths: Comparative Studies in Religion,weblink 1981, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 978-0-8386-1707-6, 81â84, 21 September 2016, 16 January 2024,weblink live, Spiritual liberation to Shankara is the full comprehension and realization of oneness of one's unchanging Atman (Self) as the same as Atman in everyone else as well as being identical to the nirguna Brahman.BOOK, Christopher Etter, A Study of Qualitative Non-Pluralism,weblink 2006, iUniverse, 978-0-595-39312-1, 57â60, 63â65, {{sfn|Indich|2000|pp=1â2, 97â102}}{{sfn|Deutsch|2013|p=247â248}} In contrast, Ramanuja's theory posits both Brahman and the world of matter are two different absolutes, both metaphysically real, neither should be called false or illusive, and saguna Brahman with attributes is also real. God, like man, states Ramanuja, has both soul and body, and all of the world of matter is the glory of God's body. The path to Brahman (Vishnu), asserted Ramanuja, is devotion to godliness and constant remembrance of the beauty and love of personal god (saguna Brahman, Vishnu), one which ultimately leads one to the oneness with nirguna Brahman.ShuddhadvaitaVallabhacharya (1479â1531 CE), the proponent of the philosophy of Shuddhadvaita Brahmvad enunciates that Ishvara has created the world without connection with any external agency such as Maya (which itself is his power) and manifests Himself through the world.Devarshi Ramanath Shastri, "Shuddhadvaita Darshan (Vol.2)", Published by Mota Mandir, Bhoiwada, Mumbai, India, 1917. That is why shuddhadvaita is known as 'Unmodified transformation' or 'Aviká¹ta Pariá¹ÄmavÄda'. Brahman or Ishvara desired to become many, and he became the multitude of individual Selfs and the world. Vallabha recognises Brahman as the whole and the individual as a 'part' (but devoid of bliss)."BrahmavÄd Saá¹ graha", Pub. Vaishnava Mitra Mandal Sarvajanik Nyasa, Indore, India, 2014.DvaitaMadhvacharya was also a critic of Advaita VedÄnta. Advaita's nondualism asserted that Atman (Self) and Brahman are identical (both in bondage and liberationTapasyananda, Swami. Bhakti Schools of Vedanta pg. 180-181), there is interconnected oneness of all Selfs and Brahman, and there are no pluralities. Madhva in contrast asserted that Atman (Self) and Brahman are different (both in bondage and liberation), only Vishnu is the Lord (Brahman), individual Selfs are also different and depend on Vishnu, and there are pluralities.ENCYCLOPEDIA, Madhva (1238â1317), Valerie, Stoker, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011, 2 February 2016,weblink 12 October 2016,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20161012131604weblink">weblink live, Stafford Betty (2010), Dvaita, Advaita, and ViÅiá¹£á¹Ädvaita: Contrasting Views of Moká¹£a, Asian Philosophy: An International Journal of the Philosophical Traditions of the East, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp. 215â224 Madhvacharya stated that both Advaita VedÄnta and Mahayana Buddhism were a nihilistic school of thought. Madhvacharya wrote four major texts, including Upadhikhandana and Tattvadyota, primarily dedicated to criticizing Advaita.SMS Chari (1999), Advaita and Visistadvaita, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120815353}}, pp. 5â7Followers of ISKCON are highly critical of Advaita VedÄnta, regarding it as mÄyÄvÄda, identical to Mahayana Buddhism.Gaura Gopala Dasa, The Self-Defeating Philosophy of Mayavada {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709183434weblink |date=9 July 2021 }}WEB,weblink Mayavada Philosophy, 3 January 2019, 14 February 2017,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20170214115618weblink">weblink live,Influence on other traditionsWithin the ancient and medieval texts of Hindu traditions, such as Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism, the ideas of Advaita VedÄnta have had a major influence.{{refn|group=note|name=Influence}} Advaita VedÄnta influenced Krishna Vaishnavism in the different parts of India.{{sfn|Neog|1980|pp=243â244}} One of its most popular text, the Bhagavata Purana, adopts and integrates in Advaita VedÄnta philosophy.{{sfn|Kumar Das|2006|pp=172â173}}{{sfn|Brown|1983|pp=553â557}}{{sfn|Sheridan|1986|pp=1â2, 17â25}} The Bhagavata Purana is generally accepted by scholars to have been composed in the second half of 1st millennium CE.{{sfn|Sheridan|1986|p=6}}BOOK, 1966, van Buitenen, J. A. B, The Archaism of the Bhagavata Purana, Milton Singer, Krishna: Myths, Rites, and Attitudes, 23â40, In the ancient and medieval literature of Shaivism, called the Ägamas, the influence of Advaita VedÄnta is once again prominent.{{sfn|Smith|2003|pp=126â128}}{{sfn|Flood|1996|pp=162â167}}{{sfn|Klostermaier|1984|pp=177â178}} Of the 92 Ägamas, ten are Dvaita texts, eighteen are Bhedabheda, and sixty-four are Advaita texts.{{sfn|Davis|2014|p=167 note 21}}{{sfn|Dyczkowski|1989|pp=43â44}} According to Natalia Isaeva, there is an evident and natural link between 6th-century Gaudapada's Advaita VedÄnta ideas and Kashmir Shaivism.{{sfn|Isaeva|1995|pp=134â135}}Shaktism, the Hindu tradition where a goddess is considered identical to Brahman, has similarly flowered from a syncretism of the monist premises of Advaita VedÄnta and dualism premises of SamkhyaâYoga school of Hindu philosophy, sometimes referred to as Shaktadavaitavada (literally, the path of nondualistic Shakti).{{sfn|McDaniel|2004|pp=89â91}}{{sfn|Brooks|1990|pp=35â39}}{{sfn|Mahony|1997|p=274 with note 73}}Other influential ancient and medieval classical texts of Hinduism such as the Yoga Yajnavalkya, Yoga Vashishta, Avadhuta GitÄ, Markandeya Purana and Sannyasa Upanishads predominantly incorporate premises and ideas of Advaita VedÄnta.{{Harvnb|Chapple|1984|pp=ixâx with footnote 3}};{{harvnb|Rosen|2001|p=149}}.BOOK, White, David Gordon, The "Yoga Sutra of Patanjali": A Biography, 2014, Princeton University Press, 978-0691143774, xviâxvii, 50â52, {{Harvnb|Rigopoulos|1998|pp=37, 57, 62â63, 195â207}};{{Harvnb|Sahasrabudhe|1968|pp=113â114}};{{Harvnb|Olivelle|1992|pp=17â18}}History of Advaita VedÄntaFile:Shri Gaudapadacharya Statue.jpg|thumb|uprightHistoriographyThe historiography of Advaita Vedanta is coloured by Orientalist notions,{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=24-25}}{{refn|group=note|name=Orientalist|In the Orientalist view, the medieval Muslim period was a time of stagnation and cultural degeneration, in which the original purity of the Upanisadic teachings, systematized by philosophers like Shankara, was lost. In this view, "the genuine achievements of Indian civilization" were recovered during the British colonial rule of India, due to the efforts of western Indologists, who viewed Advaita Vedanta as the authentic philosophy of the Upanishads, and Shankara as its greatest exponent.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=24-25}}See also Devdutt Pattanaik (August 30, 2020), Who is a Hindu? - What they don't tell you about Advaita {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211219134850weblink |date=19 December 2021 }}, Mumbai Mirror. While this view has been criticised by postcolonial studies and critiques of Orientalism, "in some corners of the academy, the Orientalists' understanding of premodern Indian history has so far escaped thorough reexamination."{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=24}}}} while modern formulations of Advaita VedÄnta, which developed as a reaction to western Orientalism and Perennialism{{sfn|King|2002|pp=136â138, 141â142}} have "become a dominant force in Indian intellectual thought."{{sfn|King|2002|p=135}} According to Michael S. Allen and Anand Venkatkrishnan, "scholars have yet to provide even a rudimentary, let alone comprehensive account of the history of Advaita VedÄnta in the centuries leading up to the colonial period."{{sfn|Allen|Venkatkrishnan|2017}}Early VedÄntaThe Upanishads form the basic texts, of which VedÄnta gives an interpretation.{{sfn|Deutsch|Dalvi|2004|pp=95â96}} The Upanishads do not contain "a rigorous philosophical inquiry identifying the doctrines and formulating the supporting arguments".{{sfn|Balasubramanian|2000|p=xxx}}{{refn|group=note|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.{{sfn|Balasubramanian|2000|p=xxix}}}} This philosophical inquiry was performed by the darsanas, the various philosophical schools.{{sfn|Balasubramanian|2000|pp=xxxâxxxi}}{{refn|group=note|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."{{sfn|Deutsch|Dalvi|2004|p=95}}}}The Brahma Sutras of BÄdarÄyana, also called the VedÄnta Sutra,{{sfn|Balasubramanian|2000|p=xxxii}} were compiled in its present form around 400â450 CE,{{sfn|Nakamura|1990|p=436}} but "the great part of the Sutra must have been in existence much earlier than that".{{sfn|Nakamura|1990|p=436}} Estimates of the date of BÄdarÄyana's lifetime differ between 200 BCE and 200 CE.{{sfn|Pandey|2000|p=4}} The Brahma Sutra is a critical study of the teachings of the Upanishads, possibly "written from a BhedÄbheda VedÄntic viewpoint." BÄdarÄyana was not the first person to systematise the teachings of the Upanishads.{{sfn|Balasubramanian|2000|p=xxxiii}} He refers to seven Vedantic teachers before him.{{sfn|Balasubramanian|2000|p=xxxiii}}Early Advaita VedÄntaTwo Advaita writings predating Maá¹á¸ana MiÅra and Shankara were known to scholars such as Nakamura in the first half of 20th-century, namely the VÄkyapadÄ«ya, written by Bhartá¹hari (second half 5th century{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=426}}), and the MÄndÅ«kya-kÄrikÄ written by Gauá¸apÄda (7th century).{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=3}} Later scholarship added the Sannyasa Upanishads (first centuries CE{{sfn|Olivelle|1992|p=10}}) to the earliest known corpus, some of which are of a sectarian nature,{{sfn|Olivelle|1992|pp=3â4}} and have a strong Advaita VedÄnta outlook.{{sfn|Olivelle|1992|pp=17â18}}Stephen H Phillips (1995), Classical Indian Metaphysics, Columbia University Press, {{ISBN|978-0812692983}}, p. 332 with note 68Antonio Rigopoulos (1998), Dattatreya: The Immortal Guru, Yogin, and Avatara, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0791436967}}, pp. 62â63According to Nakamura, "there must have been an enormous number of other writings turned out in this period [between the Brahma Sutras and Shankara], but unfortunately all of them have been scattered or lost and have not come down to us today".{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=3}} In his commentaries, Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his Sampradaya.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p={{page needed|date=February 2022}}}} In the beginning of his commentary on the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Shankara salutes the teachers of the Brahmavidya Sampradaya.WEB,weblink advaita-deanta.org, Advaita Vedanta before Sankaracarya, 25 January 2013, 3 March 2018,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20180303094318weblink">weblink live, Pre-Shankara doctrines and sayings can be traced in the works of the later schools, which does give insight into the development of early VedÄnta philosophy.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=3}}Gauá¸apÄda and {{IAST|MÄá¹á¸ukya KÄrikÄ}}According to tradition, Gauá¸apÄda (6th century){{sfn|Raju|1992|p=177}} was the teacher of Govinda Bhagavatpada and the grandteacher of Shankara. Gauá¸apÄda wrote or compiled{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=308}} the {{IAST|MÄá¹á¸ukya KÄrikÄ}}, also known as the {{IAST|Gauá¸apÄda KÄrikÄ}} or the {{IAST|Ägama ÅÄstra}}.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=280}} The {{IAST|MÄá¹á¸ukya KÄrikÄ}} is a commentary in verse form on the MÄá¹á¸Å«kya Upanishad, one of the shortest Upanishads consisting of just 13 prose sentences. Of the ancient literature related to Advaita VedÄnta, the oldest surviving complete text is the MÄá¹á¸ukya KÄrikÄ.{{sfn|Sarma|1997|p=239}} The MÄá¹á¸Å«kya Upanishad was considered to be a Åruti before the era of Adi Shankara, but not treated as particularly important.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=280}} In later post-Shankara period its value became far more important, and regarded as expressing the essence of the Upanishad philosophy. The entire Karika became a key text for the Advaita school in this later era.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|pp=280â281}}{{refn|group=note|Nakamura notes that there are contradictions in doctrine between the four chapters.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=308}}}}Gaudapada took over the Yogachara teaching of vijñapti-mÄtra, "representation-only," which states that the empirical reality that we experience is a fabrication of the mind, experienced by consciousness-an-sich,{{sfn|Raju|1971|p=177}}{{refn|group=note|It is often used interchangeably with the term citta-mÄtra, 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".{{sfn|Kochumuttom|1999|p=1}} A better translation for vijñapti-mÄtra is representation-only.{{sfn|Kochumuttom|1999|p=5}}}} and the four-cornered negation, which negates any positive predicates of 'the Absolute'.{{sfn|Raju|1971|p=177}}{{Sfn|Sarma|2007|pp=126, 143-144}}{{refn|group=note|1. Something is. 2. It is not. 3. It both is and is not. 4. It neither is nor is not.{{sfn|Garfield|Priest|2003}}{{page needed|date=August 2016}} The 'four-cornered negation' is an English gloss of the Sanskrit, Chatushkoti.{{citation needed|date=August 2016}}}} Gaudapada "wove [both doctrines] into the philosophy of Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara".{{sfn|Raju|1971|p=177-178}}{{refn|group=note|The influence of Mahayana Buddhism on other religions and philosophies was not limited to Vedanta. Kalupahana notes that the Visuddhimagga â a Theravada Buddhist tradition, contains "some metaphysical speculations, such as those of the Sarvastivadins, the Sautrantikas, and even the Yogacarins".{{sfn|Kalupahana|1994|p=206}}}} In this view,{{blockquote|the ultimate ontological reality is the pure consciousness, which is bereft of attributes and intentionality. The world of duality is nothing but a vibration of the mind (manodá¹Åya or manaspandita). The pluralistic world is imagined by the mind (saá¹kalpa) and this false projection is sponsored by the illusory factor called mÄyÄ.Gaudapada {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615104440weblink |date=15 June 2020 }}, Devanathan Jagannathan, University of Toronto, IEP}}Gauá¸apÄda uses the concepts of AjÄtivÄda to explain that 'the Absolute' is not subject to birth, change and death. The Absolute is aja, the unborn eternal.{{sfn|Sarma|1996|p=127}} The empirical world of appearances is considered unreal, and not absolutely existent.{{sfn|Sarma|1996|p=127}}Early medieval period - Maá¹á¸ana MiÅra and Adi ShankaraMaá¹á¸ana MiÅraMaá¹á¸ana MiÅra, an older contemporary of Shankara,{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=29}} was a Mimamsa scholar and a follower of Kumarila, but also wrote a seminal text on Advaita that has survived into the modern era, the Brahma-siddhi.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=31}}{{sfn|Thrasher|1993|p=viiâx}} According to Fiordalis, he was influenced by the Yoga-tradition, and with that indirectly by Buddhism, given the strong influence of Buddhism on the Yoga-tradition.{{sfn|Fiordalis|2021|p=24, note 12}} For a couple of centuries he seems to have been regarded as "the most important representative of the Advaita position,"{{sfn|King|2002|p=128}}{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|pp=33-34}}{{refn|group=note|{{harvnb|King|2002|p=128}}: "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."{{sfn|King|2002|p=128}}}} and the "theory of error" set forth in the Brahma-siddhi became the normative Advaita Vedanta theory of error.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=32}}Adi Shankara{{See also|History of India#Late Middle Kingdoms â The Late-Classical Age|l1=Late-Classical Age|History of Hinduism#Middle Ages|l2=Hinduism in the Middle Ages}}Very little is known about Shankara. According to Dalal, "Hagiographical accounts of his life, the Åaá¹ karavijayas ("Conquests of Åaá¹ kara"), were composed several centuries after his death," in the 14th to 17th century, and established Shankara as a rallying symbol of valuesin a time when most of India was conquered by Muslims.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29â30}} He is often considered to be the founder of the Advaita VedÄnta school, but was actually a systematizer, not a founder.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=678}}Systematizer of Advaita thoughtShankara was a scholar who synthesized and systematized Advaita-vÄda thought which already existed at his lifetime.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=678}} According to Nakamura, comparison of the known teachings of the early Vedantins and Shankara's thought shows that most of the characteristics of Shankara's thought "were advocated by someone before Åankara".{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=678}} According to Nakamura, after the growing influence of Buddhism on VedÄnta, culminating in the works of Gauá¸apÄda, Adi Shankara gave a Vedantic character to the Buddhistic elements in these works,{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|p=13}} synthesising and rejuvenating the doctrine of Advaita.{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|p=679}} According to Koller, using ideas in ancient Indian texts, Shankara systematized the foundation for Advaita VedÄnta in the 8th century, reforming Badarayana's VedÄnta tradition. According to Mayeda, Shankara represents a turning point in the development of VedÄnta,{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|p=13}} yet he also notices that it is only since Deussens's praise that Shankara "has usually been regarded as the greatest philosopher of India."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=XV}} Mayeda further notes that Shankara was primarily concerned with moksha, "and not with the establishment of a complete system of philosophy or theology,"{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=XV}} following Potter, who qualifies Shankara as a "speculative philosopher."{{sfn|Mayeda|1992|p=XVIII, note 3}} Lipner notes that Shankara's "main literary approach was commentarial and hence perforce disjointed rather than procedurally systematic [...] though a systematic philosophy can be derived from Samkara's thought."{{sfn|Lipner|2000|p=56, incl. note 12}}WritingsAdi Shankara is best known for his reviews and commentaries (Bhasyas) on ancient Indian texts. His Brahmasutrabhasya (literally, commentary on Brahma Sutra) is a fundamental text of the VedÄnta school of Hinduism.{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=6â7}} His commentaries on ten Mukhya (principal) Upanishads are also considered authentic by scholars.{{sfn|Mayeda|2006|pp=6â7}}{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=30â31}} Other authentic works of Shankara include commentaries on the Bhagavad GitÄ (part of his Prasthana Trayi Bhasya).{{sfn|Rambachan|1991|pp=xiiâxiii}} He also authored Upadesasahasri, his most important original philosophical work.John Koller (2007), in Chad Meister and Paul Copan (Editors): The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, Routledge, {{ISBN|978-1-134-18001-1}}, pp. 98â106Wilhelm Halbfass (1990), Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0-7914-0362-4}}, pp. 205â208 The authenticity of Shankara being the author of {{IAST|VivekacÅ«á¸Ämaá¹i}}Adi Shankaracharya, VivekacÅ«á¸Ämaá¹i S Madhavananda (Translator), Advaita Ashrama (1921) has been questioned, and "modern scholars tend to reject its authenticity as a work by Shankara."John Grimes (2004), The Vivekacudamani of Sankaracarya Bhagavatpada: An Introduction and Translation, Ashgate, {{ISBN|978-0-7546-3395-2}}, p.23Influence of ShankaraWhile Shankara has an unparalleled status in the history of Advaita Vedanta, scholars have questioned the traditional narrative of Shankara's early influence in India.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29â30}}{{sfn|King|2002|p=128}}{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|pp=33â34}} Until the 10th century Shankara was overshadowed by his older contemporary Maá¹á¸ana MiÅra, who was considered to be the major representative of Advaita.{{sfn|King|2002|p=128}}{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|pp=33â34}} Only when Vacaspati Misra, an influential student of Maá¹á¸ana MiÅra, harmonised the teachings of Shankara with those of Maá¹á¸ana MiÅra, Shankara's teachings gained prominence.{{sfn|King|1999|p=55}} Some modern Advaitins argue that most of post-Shankara Advaita Vedanta actually deviates from Shankara, and that only his student Suresvara, who's had little influence, represents Shankara correctly.{{sfn|Potter|2006|p=6-7}} In this view, Shankara's influential student Padmapada misunderstood Shankara, while his views were manitained by the Suresvara school.{{sfn|Potter|2006|p=6-7}} According to Satchidanandendra Sarasvati, "almost all the later Advaitins were influenced by Mandana Misra and Bhaskara."{{sfn|Satchidanandendra Sarasvati|1997|p=6}}{{refn|group=note|name="Influence_of_Shankara"}} Until the 11th century, Vedanta itself was a peripheral school of thought;{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|p=157; 229 note 57}} Vedanta became a major influence when Vedanta philosophy was utilized by various sects of Hinduism to ground their doctrines,{{sfn|Nakamura|2004|pp=691-693}} such as Ramanuja (11th c.), who aligned bhakti, "the major force in the religions of Hinduism," with philosophical thought, meanwhile rejecting Shankara's views.Encyclopædia Britannica, Ramanajua {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220621165517weblink |date=21 June 2022 }}The cultural influence of Shankara and Advaita Vedanta started only centuries later, in the Vijayanagara Empire in the 14th century,{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29â30}}{{sfn|Blake Michael|1992|p=60â62 with notes 6, 7 and 8}}{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=178â183}} when Sringeri matha started to receive patronage from the kings of the Vijayanagara Empire and became a powerful institution.{{sfn|Goodding|2013|p=89}} Vidyaranya, also known as Madhava, who was the Jagadguru of the Åringeri Åarada PÄ«tham from ca. 1374â1380 to 1386{{sfn|Goodding|2013|p=89}} played a central role in this growing influence of Advaita Vedanta, and the deification of Shankara as a ruler-renunciate.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29â30}}{{sfn|Blake Michael|1992|p=60â62 with notes 6, 7 and 8}}{{sfn|Nowicka|2016|p=147}}{{sfn|Bader|2001|p=vii}} From 1346 onwards Sringeri matha received patronage from the Vijayanagara kings, and its importance and influence grew rapidly in the second half of the 14th century.{{sfn|Goodding|2013|p=89}}{{refn|group=note|The insignificance of Srineri matha before this time was such, that Hacker and Kulke & Rothermund have argued that Sringeri matha may have been founded by Vidyaranya himself, proclaiming that it was established by Shankara himself.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29}}{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|1998|p=177}}}} Vidyaranya and the Sringeri matha competed for royal patronage and converts with Srivaisnava Visistadvaita, which was dominant in territories conquered by the Vijayanagara Empire,{{sfn|Stoker|2016|p=55-56}} and Madhava (the pre-ordination name of Vidyaranya) presented Shankara's teachings as the summit of all darsanas, portraying the other darsanas as partial truths which converged in Shankara's teachings.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29}} The subsequent Shankara Digvijayam genre, following the example of the earlier Madhva Digvijayam,{{sfn|Clark|2006|p=157}} presented Shankara as a ruler-renunciate, conquering the four quarters of India and bringing harmony.{{sfn|Nowicka|2016|p=147}}{{sfn|Bader|2001|p=vii}} The genre created legends to turn Shankara into a "divine folk-hero who spread his teaching through his digvijaya ("universal conquest") all over India like a victorious conqueror."{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29}}{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|1998|p=177}}Shankara's position was further established in the 19th and 20th century, when neo-Vedantins and western Orientalists, following Vidyaranya, elevated Advaita Vedanta "as the connecting theological thread that united Hinduism into a single religious tradition."{{sfn|King|2002|p=129}} Shankara became "an iconic representation of Hindu religion and culture," despite the fact that most Hindus do not adhere to Advaita Vedanta.{{sfn|King|2002|pp=129-130}}Advaita Vedanta sub-schoolsTwo defunct schools are the Pancapadika and Istasiddhi, which were replaced by Prakasatman's Vivarana school.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=40}} The still existing BhÄmatÄ« and Vivarana developed in the 11th-14th century.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p={{page needed|date=February 2022}}}} These schools worked out the logical implications of various Advaita doctrines. Two of the problems they encountered were the further interpretations of the concepts of mÄyÄ and avidya.Padmapada (c. 800 CE),{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=38}} the founder of the defunct Pancapadika school, was a direct disciple of Shankara. He wrote the Pancapadika, a commentary on the Sankara-bhaya.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=38}} Padmapada diverged from Shankara in his description of avidya, designating prakrti as avidya or ajnana.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=39}}SureÅvara (fl. 800â900 CE){{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=30}} was a contemporary of Shankara,{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=29}} and often (incorrectly) identified with Maá¹á¸ana MiÅra.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=29}}{{refn|group=note|name=karlpottermms|{{harvnb|Potter|2008|pp=346â347, 420â423}}: "There is little firm historical information about Suresvara; tradition holds Suresvara is same as Mandanamisra."}} SureÅvara has also been credited as the founder of a pre-Shankara branch of Advaita VedÄnta.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=30}}Mandana Mishra's student Vachaspati MiÅra (9th/10th century CE),{{sfn|Fowler|2002|p=129}}{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=85-86}}{{sfn|Larson|Bhattacharya|1987|p=301-312}} who is believed to have been an incarnation of Shankara to popularize the Advaita view,{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=34}} wrote the Bhamati, a commentary on Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya, and the Brahmatattva-samiksa, a commentary on Mandana Mishra's Brahma-siddhi. His thought was mainly inspired by Mandana MiÅra, and harmonises Shankara's thought with that of Mandana MiÅra.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=35}}WEB,weblink The Bhamati and Vivarana Schools, 11 September 2012, 7 April 2018,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20180407053224weblink">weblink live, The Bhamati school takes an ontological approach. It sees the Jiva as the source of avidya. It sees contemplation as the main factor in the acquirement of liberation, while the study of the Vedas and reflection are additional factors.{{sfn|King|1999|p=56}}{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=37}}Vimuktatman (c. 1200 CE){{sfn|Dasgupta|1955|p=198}} wrote the Ista-siddhi.{{sfn|Dasgupta|1955|p=198}} It is one of the four traditional siddhi, together with Mandana's Brahma-siddhi, Suresvara's Naiskarmya-siddhi, and Madusudana's Advaita-siddhi.{{sfn|Dasgupta|1955|pp=198â199}} According to Vimuktatman, absolute Reality is "pure intuitive consciousness".{{sfn|Dasgupta|1955|p=199}} His school of thought was eventually replaced by Prakasatman's Vivarana school.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=40}}Prakasatman (c. 1200â1300){{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=40}} wrote the Pancapadika-Vivarana, a commentary on the Pancapadika by Padmapadacharya.{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=40}} The Vivarana lends its name to the subsequent school. According to Roodurmun, "[H]is line of thought [...] became the leitmotif of all subsequent developments in the evolution of the Advaita tradition."{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=40}} The Vivarana school takes an epistemological approach. It is distinguished from the Bhamati school by its rejection of action and favouring Vedic study and "a direct apprehension of Brahma."{{sfn|King|1999|p=56}} Prakasatman was the first to propound the theory of mulavidya or maya as being of "positive beginningless nature",{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|p=41}} and sees Brahman as the source of avidya. Critics object that Brahman is pure consciousness, so it cannot be the source of avidya. Another problem is that contradictory qualities, namely knowledge and ignorance, are attributed to Brahman.Another late figure which is widely associated with Advaita and was influential on late Advaita thought was ÅrÄ«hará¹£a.Late medieval IndiaMichael S. Allen and Anand Venkatkrishnan note that Shankara is very well-studied, but "scholars have yet to provide even a rudimentary, let alone comprehensive account of the history of Advaita VedÄnta in the centuries leading up to the colonial period."{{sfn|Allen|Venkatkrishnan|2017}}While indologists like Paul Hacker and Wilhelm Halbfass took Shankara's system as the measure for an "orthodox" Advaita VedÄnta, the living Advaita VedÄnta tradition in medieval times was influenced by, and incorporated elements from, the yogic tradition and texts like the Yoga Vasistha and the Bhagavata Purana.{{sfn|Madaio|2017|pp=4â5}} Yoga and samkhya had become minor schools of thought since the time of Shankara, and no longer posed a thread for the sectarian identity of Advaita, in contrast to the Vaishnava traditions.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=178â183}} The Yoga Vasistha became an authoritative source text in the Advaita vedÄnta tradition in the 14th century, and the "yogic Advaita"{{sfn|Fort|1996|p=136}}{{sfn|Fort|1998|p=97}} of VidyÄraÅya's Jivanmuktiviveka (14th century) was influenced by the (Laghu-)Yoga-Vasistha, which in turn was influenced by Kashmir Shaivism.{{sfn|Madaio|2017|p=4}} Vivekananda's 19th century emphasis on nirvikalpa samadhi was preceded by medieval yogic influences on Advaita VedÄnta. In the 16th and 17th centuries, some Nath and hatha yoga texts also came within the scope of the developing Advaita VedÄnta tradition.{{sfn|Madaio|2017|p=5}}According to Andrew Nicholson, it was with the arrival of Islamic rule, first in the form of Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire, and the subsequent persecution of Indian religions, that Hindu scholars began a self-conscious attempts to define an identity and unity.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=190â194, 200â201}}JOURNAL, Gaborieau, Marc, June 1985, From Al-Beruni to Jinnah: Idiom, Ritual and Ideology of the Hindu-Muslim Confrontation in South Asia, Anthropology Today, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1, 3, 7â14, 10.2307/3033123, 3033123, Between the twelfth and the fourteenth century, this effort emerged with the "astika and nastika" schema of classifying Indian philosophy.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=190â194, 200â201}}VidyÄraá¹yaIt is only during this period that the historical fame and cultural influence of Shankara and Advaita Vedanta was established.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29â30}}{{sfn|Blake Michael|1992|p=60â62 with notes 6, 7 and 8}}{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=178â183}} Advaita Vedanta's position as most influential Hindu darsana took shape as Advaitins in the Vijayanagara Empire competed for patronage from the royal court, and tried to convert others to their sect.{{sfn|Stoker|2016|p=55-56}} Sringeri matha started to receive patronage from the kings of the Vijayanagara Empire{{sfn|Roodurmun|2002|pp=33â34}}{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29â30}}{{sfn|Goodding|2013|p=89}}{{sfn|Blake Michael|1992|p=60â62 with notes 6, 7 and 8}} who shifted their allegiance from Advaitic Agamic Shaivism to Brahmanical Advaita orthodoxy.{{sfn|Clark|2006|p=215, 221-222}}Central in this repositioning was VidyÄraá¹ya,{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29â30}}{{sfn|Blake Michael|1992|p=60â62 with notes 6, 7 and 8}} also known as Madhava, who was the Jagadguru of the Åringeri Åarada PÄ«tham from 1380 to 1386Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "MÄdhava ÄchÄrya". Encyclopædia Britannica. and a minister in the Vijayanagara Empire.{{sfn|Talbot|2001|p=185â187, 199â201}} He inspired the re-creation of the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire of South India, in response to the devastation caused by the Islamic Delhi Sultanate,{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29â30}}{{sfn|Blake Michael|1992|p=60â62 with notes 6, 7 and 8}}{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=178â183}}{{sfn|Talbot|2001|p=185â187, 199â201}} but his efforts were also targeted at Srivaisnava groups, especially Visistadvaita, which was dominant in territories conquered by the Vijayanagara Empire.{{sfn|Stoker|2016|p=55}} Sects competed for patronage from the royal court, and tried to convert others to their own sectarian system, and Vidyaranya efforts were aimed at promoting Advaita Vedanta.{{sfn|Stoker|2016|p=55-56}} Most of Shankara's biographies were created and published from the 14th to the 17th century, such as the widely cited Åankara-vijaya, in which legends were created to turn Shankara into a "divine folk-hero who spread his teaching through his digvijaya ("universal conquest") all over India like a victorious conqueror."{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29}}{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|1998|p=177}}{{sfn|Goodding|2013|p=90}}Vidyaranya and his brothers wrote extensive Advaitic commentaries on the Vedas and Dharma to make "the authoritative literature of the Aryan religion" more accessible.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29}} In his doxography SarvadarÅanasaá¹ graha ("Summary of all views") Vidyaranya presented Shankara's teachings as the summit of all darsanas, presenting the other darsanas as partial truths which converged in Shankara's teachings, which was regarded to be the most inclusive system.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=160-162}}{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29}} The Vaishanava traditions of Dvaita and Visitadvaita were not classified as Vedanta, and placed just above Buddhism and Jainism, reflecting the threat they posed for Vidyaranya's Advaita allegiance.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=160}} Bhedabheda wasn't mentioned at all, "literally written out of the history of Indian philosophy."{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=161}} Vidyaranya became head of Sringeri matha, proclaiming that it was established by Shankara himself.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29}}{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|1998|p=177}} Vidyaranya enjoyed royal support,{{sfn|Talbot|2001|p=185â187, 199â201}} and his sponsorship and methodical efforts helped establish Shankara as a rallying symbol of values, spread historical and cultural influence of Shankara's VedÄnta philosophies, and establish monasteries (mathas) to expand the cultural influence of Shankara and Advaita VedÄnta.{{sfn|Hacker|1995|p=29â30}}Modern AdvaitaNiÅcaldÄs and "Greater" AdvaitaMichael S. Allen has written on the influence and popularity of Advaita Vedanta in early modern north India, especially on the work of the Advaita DÄdÅ«-panthÄ« monk NiÅcaldÄs (ca. 1791â1863), author of The Ocean of Inquiry (Hindi: VichÄra-sÄgara), a vernacular compendium of Advaita.{{sfn|Allen|2017}} According to Allen, the work of NiÅcaldÄs "was quite popular in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: it was translated into over eight languages and was once referred to by Vivekananda as having 'more influence in India than any [book] that has been written in any language within the last three centuries.'"{{sfn|Allen|2017}} Allen highlights the widespread prominence in early modern India of what he calls "Greater Advaita VedÄnta" which refers to popular Advaita works, including "narratives and dramas, âeclecticâ works blending VedÄnta with other traditions, and vernacular works such as The Ocean of Inquiry."{{sfn|Allen|2017}} Allen refers to several popular late figures and texts which draw on Advaita Vedanta, such as the Maharashtrian sant EknÄth (16th c.), the popular AdhyÄtma-rÄmÄyaá¹a (ca. late 15th c.), which synthesizes Rama bhakti and advaita metaphysics and the TripurÄ-rahasya (a tantric text that adopts an advaita metaphysics).{{sfn|Allen|2017}} Other important vernacular Advaita figures include the Hindu authors ManohardÄs and MÄá¹akdÄs (who wrote the Ätma-bodh). Advaita literature was also written in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi, Bengali, and Oriya.{{sfn|Allen|2017}}Neo-VedantaFile:MKGandhi.jpg|thumb|upright|(Mahatma Gandhi]] stated "I am an advaitist".BOOK, J. Jordens, Gandhi's Religion: A Homespun Shawl,weblink 1998, Palgrave Macmillan, 978-0-230-37389-1, 116, BOOK, Jeffrey D. Long, Rita Sherma and Arvind Sharma, Hermeneutics and Hindu Thought: Toward a Fusion of Horizons,weblink 2008, Springer, 978-1-4020-8192-7, 194, 1 June 2017, 21 July 2023,weblink live, )According to King, with the consolidation of the British imperialist rule the new rulers started to view Indians through the "colonially crafted lenses" of Orientalism. In response Hindu nationalism emerged, striving for socio-political independence and countering the influence of Christian missionaries.{{sfn|King|2002|pp=107â109}} Among the colonial era intelligentsia the monistic Advaita VedÄnta has been a major ideological force for Hindu nationalism,BOOK, Anshuman A Mondal, Nationalism and Post-Colonial Identity: Culture and Ideology in India and Egypt,weblink 2004, Routledge, 978-1-134-49417-0, 85, 256, with Hindu intellectuals formulating a "humanistic, inclusivist" response, now called Neo-VedÄnta, attempting to respond to this colonial stereotyping of "Indian culture [as] backward, superstitious and inferior to the West."{{sfn|King|2002|pp=136â138}}Due to the influence of Vidyaranya's SarvadarÅanasaá¹ graha, early Indologists regarded Advaita Vedanta as the most accurate interpretation of the Upanishads.{{sfn|Nicholson|2010|pp=160}} VedÄnta came to be regarded, both by westerners as by Indian nationalists, as the essence of Hinduism, and Advaita VedÄnta came to be regarded as "then paradigmatic example of the mystical nature of the Hindu religion" and umbrella of "inclusivism".{{sfn|King|2002|pp=107â109, 128}} Colonial era Indian thinkers, such as Vivekananda, presented Advaita VedÄnta as an inclusive universal religion, a spirituality that in part helped organize a religiously infused identity. It also aided the rise of Hindu nationalism as a counter weight to Islam-infused Muslim communitarian organizations such as the Muslim League, to Christianity-infused colonial orientalism and to religious persecution of those belonging to Indian religions.BOOK, Brian Morris, Religion and Anthropology: A Critical Introduction,weblink 2006, Cambridge University Press, 978-0-521-85241-8, 112, 141â144, 29 January 2017, 16 January 2024,weblink live, BOOK, Thomas Blom Hansen, The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India,weblink 1999, Princeton University Press, 978-0691006710, 76â77, 91â92, 179â181, 44â47, 69â70, 29 January 2017, 16 January 2024,weblink live, Neo-VedÄnta subsumed and incorporated Buddhist ideas thereby making the Buddha a part of the VedÄnta tradition, all in an attempt to reposition the history of Indian culture.{{sfn|King|2002|pp=136â138, 141â142}} This view on Advaita VedÄnta, according to King, "provided an opportunity for the construction of a nationalist ideology that could unite Hindus in their struggle against colonial oppression".{{sfn|King|2002|pp=132â133, 172}}Vivekananda discerned a universal religion, regarding all the apparent differences between various traditions as various manifestations of one truth.{{sfn|Rambachan|1994|pp=91â92}} Vivekananda emphasised nirvikalpa samadhi as the spiritual goal of VedÄnta, he equated it to the liberation in Yoga and encouraged Yoga practice which he called Raja yoga.BOOK, Rabindra Kumar Dasgupta, Swami Vivekananda on Indian philosophy and literature,weblink 1996, Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, 978-81-85843-81-0, 145â146, 284â285, 29 January 2017, 16 January 2024,weblink live, {{refn|group=note|According to Comans, this approach is missing in historic Advaita texts.JOURNAL, Comans, Michael, 170870115, The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta, Philosophy East and West, University of Hawai'i Press, 43, 1, 1993, 19â38, 10.2307/1399467, 1399467, }} With the efforts of Vivekananda, modern formulations of Advaita VedÄnta have "become a dominant force in Indian intellectual thought", though Hindu beliefs and practices are diverse.{{sfn|King|2002|p=135}}Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, first a professor at Oxford University and later a President of India, further popularized Advaita VedÄnta, presenting it as the essence of Hinduism. According to Michael Hawley, Radhakrishnan saw other religions, as well as "what Radhakrishnan understands as lower forms of Hinduism," as interpretations of Advaita VedÄnta, thereby "in a sense Hindusizing all religions". Radhakrishnan metaphysics was grounded in Advaita VedÄnta, but he reinterpreted Advaita VedÄnta for contemporary needs and context.WEB,weblink Michael Hawley, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888â1975), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 9 June 2014, 12 July 2019,weblink live, {{refn|group=note|name=bhedabheda|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."JOURNAL, Nicholas F., Gier, 2012, Overreaching to be different: A critique of Rajiv Malhotra's Being Different, International Journal of Hindu Studies, 16, 3, 259â285, 10.1007/s11407-012-9127-x, 144711827, }}Mahatma Gandhi declared his allegiance to Advaita VedÄnta, and was another popularizing force for its ideas.BOOK, Nicholas F., Gier, 2004, The Virtue of Nonviolence: From Gautama to Gandhi,weblink State University of New York Press, 978-0-7914-5949-2, 40â42, 1 June 2017, 21 July 2023,weblink live,Contemporary Advaita VedÄntaContemporary teachers are the orthodox Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham; the more traditional teachers Sivananda Saraswati (1887â1963), Chinmayananda Saraswati (1916-1993), Dayananda Saraswati (Arsha Vidya) (1930-2015), Swami Paramarthananda, Swami Tattvavidananda Sarasvati, Carol Whitfield (Radha), Sri Vasudevacharya (previously Michael Comans) and less traditional teachers such as Narayana Guru.WEB,weblink Advaita Vision, teachers, 6 April 2015, 29 January 2022,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20220129032833weblink">weblink live, According to Sangeetha Menon, prominent names in 20th century Advaita tradition are Shri Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswami, Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swamigal, SacchidÄnandendra Saraswati.WEB,weblink Sangeetha Menon (2007), Advaita VedÄnta, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 30 January 2013, 26 June 2015,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20150626101653weblink">weblink live,Influence on new religious movementsAdvaita VedÄnta has gained attention in western spirituality and New Age as nondualism, where various traditions are seen as driven by the same non-dual experience.{{sfn|Katz|2007}} Nonduality points to "a primordial, natural awareness without subject or object".WEB,weblink Undivided Journal, About the Journal, 30 January 2013,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20180823200254weblink">weblink 23 August 2018, dead, 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,weblink Jerry Katz on Nonduality, "What is Nonduality?", 30 January 2013, 6 November 2018,weblink dead, Neo-Advaita is a new religious movement based on a popularised, western interpretation of Advaita VedÄnta and the teachings of Ramana Maharshi.{{sfn|Lucas|2011}} Notable neo-advaita teachers are H. W. L. Poonja,{{sfn|Caplan|2009|pp=16â17}}{{sfn|Lucas|2011}} his students Gangaji{{sfn|Lucas|2011|pp=102â105}} Andrew Cohen{{refn|group=note|Presently Cohen has distanced himself from Poonja, and calls his teachings "Evolutionary Enlightenment".{{sfn|Gleig|2011|p=10}} What Is Enlightenment, the magazine published by Choen's organisation, has been critical of neo-Advaita several times, as early as 2001. See.weblink" title="archive.today/20130414172435weblink">What is Enlightenment? 1 September 2006What is Enlightenment? 31 December 2001 {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130310124030weblink |date=10 March 2013}}weblink" title="archive.today/20130414151819weblink">What is Enlightenment? 1 December 2005}}, and Eckhart Tolle.{{sfn|Lucas|2011}}See also
Notes{{reflist|group=note|2|refs={{refn|group=note|name=Brahman|Highest self:
ReferencesSourcesPrinted sources{{columns-list|
Further reading
External links{{Commons category}}
|
- content above as imported from Wikipedia
- "Advaita Vedanta" does not exist on GetWiki (yet)
- time: 9:22am EDT - Sat, May 18 2024
- "Advaita Vedanta" does not exist on GetWiki (yet)
- time: 9:22am EDT - Sat, May 18 2024
[ this remote article is provided by Wikipedia ]
LATEST EDITS [ see all ]
GETWIKI 23 MAY 2022
The Illusion of Choice
Culture
Culture
GETWIKI 09 JUL 2019
Eastern Philosophy
History of Philosophy
History of Philosophy
GETWIKI 09 MAY 2016
GetMeta:About
GetWiki
GetWiki
GETWIKI 18 OCT 2015
M.R.M. Parrott
Biographies
Biographies
GETWIKI 20 AUG 2014
GetMeta:News
GetWiki
GetWiki
© 2024 M.R.M. PARROTT | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED