Adi Shankara, the most prominent exponent of Advaita Vedānta tradition. "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." Adi Shankara,Upadesasahasri 11.7[1]
Advaita Vedanta (/ʌdˈvaɪtəvɛˈdɑːntə/;Sanskrit:अद्वैत वेदान्त,IAST:Advaita Vedānta) is aHindu tradition ofBrahmanical textual exegesis andphilosophy, and a monastic institutional tradition nominally related to theDaśanāmi Sampradaya and propagated by theSmarta tradition. Its core tenet is thatjivatman, the individual experiencing self, is ultimately pure awareness mistakenly identified with the body and its senses[2] and with thought-constructs,[3] and non-different fromĀtman/Brahman, the highest Self orReality.[4][5][6][note 1] The termAdvaita (अद्वैत) literally means "not-two"[7][8] or "one without a second,"[8] which means that onlyBrahman, 'the one', is ultimately real whileprapanca, 'the second', 'the world' or the multiplicity of thought-constructs, is not fully real.[9] It is commonly rendered as "nonduality,"[10][11] and popularly interpreted as meaning that Atman is non-different from Brahman, and often equated withmonism.[note 2]
Advaita Vedanta is aHindusādhanā, a path of spiritual discipline and experience.[note 3] It states thatmoksha (liberation from'suffering' andrebirth)[12][13] is attained through knowledge of Brahman, recognizing the illusoriness of the phenomenal world and disidentification from body-mind and the notion of 'doership',[note 4] and by acquiringvidyā (knowledge)[14] of one's true identity asAtman/Brahman,[1][15][16][17] self-luminous (svayam prakāśa)[note 5] awareness orWitness-consciousness.[18][note 6] This knowledge is acquired throughUpanishadic statements such astat tvam asi, "that['s how] you are," which destroy the ignorance (avidyā) regarding one's true identity by revealing that(jiv)Ātman is non-different from immortal[note 7]Brahman.[note 1]
The Advaita vedanta tradition modifies theSamkhya-dualism betweenPurusha (pure awareness or consciousness) andPrakriti ('nature', which includes matter but also cognition and emotion) as the two equal basic principles of existence.[19][20] It proposes instead thatAtman/Brahman (awareness,purusha) alone is ultimatelyreal and, though unchanging,[21] is the cause and origin of the transientphenomenal world (prakriti). In this view, thejivatman or individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of singularĀtman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies.[22] It regards the material world as an illusory appearance (maya) or "an unreal manifestation (vivarta) of Brahman,"[23] the latter as proposed by the 13th century scholarPrakasatman of theVivarana school.[24]
Advaita Vedanta is often presented as an elite scholarly tradition belonging to theorthodox HinduVedānta[note 8] tradition, emphasizing scholarly works written in Sanskrit;[25] as such, it is an "iconic representation of Hindu religion and culture."[26] Yet contemporary Advaita Vedanta is yogic Advaita, a medieval and modern syncretic tradition incorporatingYoga and other traditions, and producing works in vernacular.[25] The earliest Advaita writings are theSannyasa Upanishads (first centuries CE), theVākyapadīya, written byBhartṛhari (second half 5th century,[27]) and theMāndūkya-kārikā written byGauḍapāda (7th century).[28] Gaudapada adaptedphilosophical concepts fromBuddhism, giving them a Vedantic basis and interpretation.[29] The Buddhist concepts were further Vedanticised byAdi Shankara (8th c. CE), who is generally regarded as the most prominent exponent of the Advaita Vedānta tradition,[30][31][32][33] though some of the most prominent Advaita-propositions come from other Advaitins, and his early influence has been questioned.[34][35][note 9] Adi Shankara emphasized that, since Brahman is ever-present, Brahman-knowledge isimmediate and requires no 'action' or 'doership', that is, striving (to attain) and effort.[36][37][38] Nevertheless, the Advaita tradition, as represented byMandana Misra and theBhamati school, also prescribes elaborate preparatory practice, including contemplation ofmahavakyas,[37][39][40][41][note 9] presenting a tension betweensudden and gradual approaches which is also recognized in other spiritual disciplines and traditions.[37][42][note 10]
Shankaracharya's prominence as the exemplary defender of traditional Hindu-values and spirituality started to take shape only centuries later, in the 14th century, with the ascent of Sringeri matha and itsjagadguruVidyaranya (Madhava, 14th cent.) in theVijayanagara Empire,[note 11] While Adi Shankara did not embraceYoga,[43] the Advaita-tradition by then had accepted yogic samadhi as a means to still the mind and attain knowledge, explicitly incorporating elements from the yogic tradition and texts like theYoga Vasistha and theBhagavata Purana,[44] culminating inSwami Vivekananda's full embrace and propagation of Yogic samadhi as an Advaita means of knowledge and liberation.[45][46] In the 19th century, due to the influence ofVidyaranya'sSarvadarśanasaṅgraha,[47] the importance of Advaita Vedānta was overemphasized byWestern scholarship,[48] and Advaita Vedānta came to be regarded as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality, despite the numerical dominance oftheisticBhakti-oriented religiosity.[49][50][48][note 9] In modern times, Advaita views appear in variousNeo-Vedānta movements.[51]
The wordAdvaita is a composite of two Sanskrit words:
Prefix "a-" (अ), meaning "non-"
"Dvaita" (द्वैत), which means 'duality' or 'dualism'.[web 1]
Advaita is often translated as "non-duality," but a more apt translation is "non-secondness."[4] Fabian Volker, followingPaul Hacker explains thatdvaita does not mean "duality," but "the state in which a second is present," synonymous withprapanca, "conceptual proliferation," and withjagat, "the world." Advaita thus means that onlyBrahman, 'the one', is ultimately real, while the world with its multiplicity, 'the second', is not fully real.[9]As Gaudapada states, when the unreal is taken as real, people grasp to the unreal, which issamsara. By realizing one's true identity asBrahman, there is no more grasping, and the mind comes to rest.[52]
In a popular sense, advaita is often expressed as the famous diction that Atman is Brahman, meaning thatjivatman, the individual experiencing self, is ultimately pure awareness mistakenly identified with body and the senses,[53] and non-different ("na aparah") fromĀtman/Brahman, the highest Self orReality;[4][5][6][note 1]; the knowledge of this true identity is liberating.
The wordVedānta is a composition of two Sanskrit words: The wordVeda refers to the whole corpus of vedic texts, and the word "anta" means 'end'. From this, one meaning ofVedānta is "the end of the Vedas" or "the ultimate knowledge of the Vedas".Veda can also mean "knowledge" in general, soVedānta can be taken to mean "the end, conclusion or finality of knowledge".Vedānta is one of six orthodox schools ofHindu philosophy.
While "a preferred terminology" for Upanisadic philosophy "in the early periods, before the time of Shankara" wasPuruṣavāda,[54][note 12] the Advaita Vedānta school has historically been referred to by various names, such asAdvaita-vada (speaker of Advaita),Abheda-darshana (view of non-difference),Dvaita-vada-pratisedha (denial of dual distinctions), andKevala-dvaita (non-dualism of the isolated).[55] It is also calledmāyāvāda by Vaishnava opponents, akin toMadhyamakaBuddhism, due to their insistence that phenomena ultimately lack an inherent essence or reality.[56][57][58][59]
"Advaita" (अद्वैत) is from Sanskrit rootsa, not;dvaita, "customarily translated as dual."[9] AsAdvaita, it is usually translated as "not-two"[7][8] or "one without a second",[8] and most commonly as "nondualism", "nonduality" or "nondual," invoking the notion of a dichotomy. Fabian Volker, followingPaul Hacker explains thatdvaita does not mean "duality," but "the state in which a second is present," the second here being synonymous withprapanca, "conceptual proliferation," and withjagat, "the world." Advaita thus means that onlyBrahman, 'the one', is ultimately real, while the phenomenal world, or theconceptual multiplicity, 'the second', is not fully real.[9] The term thus does not emphasize two instances, but the notion that the second instance is not fully real, andadvaita is better translated as "that which has no second beside it" instead of "nonduality," denying multiplicity and the proliferation of concepts "that tend to obscure the true state of affairs."[9][note 13]
According to Richard King, a professor of Buddhist and Asian studies, the termAdvaita first occurs in a recognizably Vedantic context in the prose ofMandukya Upanishad.[55] According toFrits Staal, a professor of philosophy specializing in Sanskrit and Vedic studies, the wordAdvaita itself is from the Vedic era, and the Vedic sageYajnavalkya (8th or 7th-century BCE[61][62]) is credited to be the one who coined it.[63] Stephen Phillips, a professor of philosophy and Asian studies, translates theAdvaita containing verse excerpt inBrihadaranyaka Upanishad, as "An ocean, a single seer without duality becomes he whose world is Brahman."[note 15]
While the term "Advaita Vedanta" in a strict sense may refer to the scholastic tradition of textual exegesis established by Shankara and themonasticinstitutions, "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 asKashmir Shaivism and theNath tradition.[65] The first connotation has also been called "Classical Advaita"[33][66] and "doctrinal Advaita,"[67] and its presentation as such is due to mediaevaldoxographies,[46] the influence of Orientalist Indologists likePaul Deussen,[68] and the Indian response to colonial influences, dubbedneo-Vedanta by Paul Hacker, who regarded it as a deviation from "traditional" Advaita Vedanta.[33] Yet, post-Shankara Advaita Vedanta incorporated yogic elements, such as theYoga Vasistha, and influenced other Indian traditions, and neo-Vedanta is based on this broader strand of Indian thought.[33] This broader current of thought and practice has also been called "greater Advaita Vedanta,"[25] "vernacular advaita,"[33] and "experiential Advaita."[67] It is this broader advaitic tradition which is commonly presented as "Advaita Vedanta," though the term "advaitic" may be more apt.[33][note 16]
The nondualism of Advaita Vedānta is often regarded as an idealistmonism.[note 2] According to King, Advaita Vedānta developed "to its ultimate extreme" the monistic ideas already present in the Upanishads.[note 17] In contrast, states Milne, it is misleading to call Advaita Vedānta "monistic," since this confuses the "negation of difference" with "conflation into one."[69]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.[69]
According to Deutsch, Advaita Vedānta teaches monistic oneness, however without the multiplicity premise of alternate monism theories.[70] 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.[71]
Nicholson states Advaita Vedānta contains realistic strands of thought, both in its oldest origins and in Shankara's writings.[72]
Soteriology: moksha – liberating knowledge of Brahman
The soteriological goal, in Advaita, is to gain self-knowledge as being in essence (Atman), awareness orwitness-consciousness, and complete understanding of the real identity ofjivan-ātman asBrahman.[1] Correct knowledge of Atman and Brahman is the attainment ofBrahman, immortality,[73] and leads tomoksha (liberation) from suffering[note 18] andsamsara, the cycle of rebirth.[1] This is stated by Shankara as follows:
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.
According to Advaita Vedānta, liberation can be achieved while living, and is calledJivanmukti.[74][75][note 19] in contrast toVidehamukti (moksha from samsara after death) in theistic sub-schools of Vedānta.[76][better source needed] The Atman-knowledge, that is the knowledge of true Self and its relationship to Brahman is central to this liberation in Advaita thought.[note 20] Atman-knowledge, to Advaitins, is full awareness that everything is Brahman.[78][79][note 21]
According toAnantanand 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."[80]
Advaita Vedānta regards the liberated state of beingAtman/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.[37] As Swami Vivekananda stated:
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.
— Adi Shankara's commentary on FourthVyasa Sutra, Swami Vivekananda[81]
According to Shankara, taking asubitist position,[82]moksha is attained at once when themahavakyas, articulating the identity ofAtman andBrahman, are understood.[83][38][note 22]
Yet, the Advaita-tradition also emphasizes human effort, a path of Jnana Yoga with a progression of study and training to realize one's true identity asAtman/Brahman and attainmoksha.[37][39][40] According to the contemporary Advaita tradition, knowledge of Atman/Brahman is obtained gradually, bysvādhyāya, study of the self and of the Vedic texts, which consists of four stages ofsamanyasa:virāga ('renunciation'),sravana ('listening to the teachings of the sages'),manana ('reflection on the teachings') andnididhyāsana, introspection and profound and repeated meditation on themahavakyas, selected Upanishadic statements such astat tvam asi ('that art thou' or 'you are That') which are taken literal, and form thesrutic evidence for the identity ofjivanatman and Atman/Brahman.[84][85][web 4] This meditation negates the misconceptions, false knowledge, andfalse ego-identity, rooted inmaya, which obfuscate the ultimate truth of the oneness of Brahman, and one's true identity asAtman/Brahman.[86] This culminates in what Adi Shankara refers to asanubhava, immediate intuition, a direct awareness which is construction-free, and not construction-filled. It is not an awarenessof Brahman, but instead an awareness thatis Brahman.[87] Although the threefold practice is broadly accepted in the Advaita tradition, and affirmed byMandana Misra,[88] it is at odds with Shankara,[89] who took asubitist position.[82]
Sruti (scriptures), proper reasoning and meditation are the main sources of knowledge (vidya) for the Advaita Vedānta tradition.[41][90][91] It teaches that correct knowledge of Atman and Brahman is achievable bysvādhyāya,[92] study of the self and of the Vedic texts, and three stages of practice:sravana (perception, hearing),manana (thinking) andnididhyasana (meditation),[41] a three-step methodology that is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad.[93][94]
According to critics ofneo-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'sUpadesasahasri[95] and theVivekachudamani, which is also attributed to Shankara.
The Advaita student has to develop the fourfold qualities,[96] or behavioral qualifications (Samanyasa,Sampattis,sādhana-catustaya):[97][98][99][note 23] A student in Advaita Vedānta tradition is required to develop these four qualities:
Nityānitya vastu viveka (नित्यानित्य वस्तु विवेकम्) – Viveka is the ability to correctly discriminate between the real and eternal (nitya) and the substance that is apparently real, illusory, changing and transitory (anitya).[97][84]
Ihāmutrārtha phala bhoga virāga (इहाऽमुत्रार्थ फल भोगविरागम्) – The renunciation (virāga) of all desires of the mind (bhoga) for sense pleasures, in this world (iha) and other worlds. Willing to give up everything that is an obstacle to the pursuit of truth and self-knowledge.[84][100]
Śamādi ṣatka sampatti (शमादि षट्क सम्पत्ति) – the sixfold virtues or qualities:
Śama – mental tranquility, ability to focus the mind.[84][100]
Dama – self-restraint,[note 24] the virtue of temperance.[84][100] restraining the senses.
Uparati – dispassion, lack of desire for worldly pleasures, ability to be quiet and disassociated from everything;[84] discontinuation of all religious duties and ceremonies[100]
Titikṣa – endurance, perseverance, putting up with pairs of opposites (like heat and cold, pleasure and pain), ability to be patient during demanding circumstances[84][100]
Śraddhā – having faith in teacher and theSruti scriptural texts[84]
Samādhāna – contentedness, satisfaction of mind in all conditions, attention, intentness of mind[84][100]
Mumukṣutva (मुमुक्षुत्वम्) – An intense longing for freedom, liberation and wisdom, driven to the quest of knowledge and understanding. Having moksha as the primary goal of life[84][96]
The threefold practice:sravana (hearing),manana (thinking) andnididhyasana (meditation)
The Advaita tradition teaches that correct knowledge, which destroysavidya, psychological and perceptual errors related to Atman and Brahman,[16] is obtained injnanayoga through three stages of practice,[98]sravana (hearing),manana (thinking) andnididhyasana (meditation).[41] This three-step methodology is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad:[93][94]
Sravana, which literally means hearing. The student listens and discusses the ideas, concepts, questions and answers.[41][93] of the sages on theUpanishads and Advaita Vedānta, studying the Vedantic texts, such as theBrahma Sutras, aided by discussions with theguru (teacher, counsellor).[97][104][41]
Nididhyāsana, the stage of meditation and introspection.[84][web 5] This stage of practice aims at realization and consequent conviction of the truths, non-duality and a state where there is a fusion of thought and action, knowing and being.[106][93]
Although the threefold practice is broadly accepted in the Advaita tradition, Shankara's works show an ambivalence toward it: while accepting its authenticity and merits, as it is based in the scriptures, he also takes asubitist position,[82] arguing thatmoksha is attained at once when themahavakyas, articulating the identity ofAtman andBrahman, are understood.[83][38][note 25] According to Rambachan, "it is not possible to reconcile Sankara's views with this seemingly well-ordered system."[89]
Mandana Misra, on the other hand, explicitly affirms the threefold practice as the means to acquire knowledge of Brahman, referring to meditation asdhyana.[107] He states that these practices, though conceptual, 'can eliminate both ignorance and coneptuality at the same time, leaving only the "pure, transparent nature" of self-awareness'.[108]
Bilimoria states that these three stages of Advaita practice can be viewed assadhana practice that unifiesYoga andKarma ("action," referring here to ritual) ideas, and was most likely derived from these older traditions.[109][104]
Advaita Vedānta school has traditionally had a high reverence for a Guru (teacher), and recommends that a competent Guru be sought in one's pursuit of spirituality, though this is not mandatory.[110] Reading of Vedic literature and reflection is the most essential practice.[110] Adi Shankara, states Comans, regularly employed compound words "such asSastracaryopadesa (instruction by way of the scriptures and the teacher) andVedāntacaryopadesa (instruction by way of the Upanishads and the teacher) to emphasize the importance of Guru".[110] 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.[111] 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.[112]
A guru is someone more than a teacher, traditionally a reverential figure to the student, with theguru 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.[113] 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."[113]
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.[114][115] In contrast to other schools of Indian philosophy, early Vedanta paid little attention topramana.[116] TheBrahmasutras are not concerned withpramana, andpratyaksa (sense-perception) andanumana (inference) refer there tosruti andsmriti respectively.[116] Shankara recognized the means of knowledge,[117][note 26] but his thematic focus was uponmetaphysics andsoteriology, and he took for granted thepramanas.[122] For Shankara,sabda is the only means of knowledge for attainingBrahman-jnana.[123] According to Sengaku Mayeda, "in no place in his works [...] does he give any systematic account of them,"[122] takingAtman/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."[122]
Nevertheless, the Advaita tradition accepts altogether six kinds ofpramāṇas.[124][125][126][123] While Adi Shankara emphasizedŚabda (शब्द), relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts with regard to religious insights,[115][127][124][128] and also acceptedpratyakṣa (प्रत्यक्षाय), perception; andanumāṇa (अनुमान), inference; classical Advaita Vedānta, just like theBhatta Purvamimamsaka school, also acceptsupamāṇa (उपमान), comparison, analogy;arthāpatti (अर्थापत्ति), postulation, derivation from circumstances;[115][129] andanupalabdhi (अनुपलब्धि), non-perception, negative/cognitive proof.[127][124]
According to Dubois, Shankara's Advaita emphasizes that, since Brahman is ever-present, Brahman-knowledge is immediate and requires no 'action', that is, striving and effort;[36] yet, the contemporary Advaita tradition, which is a yogic Advaita synthesis which developed in the late mediaeval period, also prescribes elaborate preparatory practice, including yogic samadhi, posing a paradox which is also recognized in other spiritual disciplines and traditions.[130][42][note 10]
Shankara regarded thesrutis as the means of knowledge of Brahman, and he was ambivalent about yogic practices and meditation, which at best may prepare one forBrahma-jnana.[web 6] According to Rambachan, criticising Vivekananda, Shankara states that the knowledge of Brahman can only be obtained from inquiry of theShruti, and not by Yoga or samadhi, which at best can only silence the mind.[131] 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."[132] Later Advaita texts like theDṛg-Dṛśya-Viveka (14th century) andVedāntasara (of Sadananda) (15th century) addedsamādhi as a means to liberation, a theme that was also emphasized by Swami Vivekananda.[44] TheVivekachudamani, traditionally attributed to Shankara but post-dating him,[133] "conceives ofnirvikalpa samadhi as the premier method of Self-realization over and above the well-known vedantic discipline of listening, reflection and deep contemplation."[65] Koller states that yogic concentration is an aid to gaining knowledge in Advaita.[134]
The role ofanubhava,anubhuti ("experience," "intuition"[135]) as "experience" in gainingBrahman-jnana is contested. While neo-Vedanta claims a central position foranubhava as "experience," Shankara himself regarded reliance on textual authority as sufficient for gainingBrahman-jnana,[136][note 27] "the intuition of Brahman,"[135] and usedanubhava interchangeably withpratipatta, "understanding".[137] 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."[138][note 28]
TheVivekachudamani "explicit[ly] declar[es] that experience (anubhuti) is apramana, or means of knowing (VCM 59),"[65] andneo-Vedanta also acceptsanubhava ("personal experience") as a means of knowledge.[139] Dalal and others state thatanubhava does not center around some sort of "mystical experience," but around the correct knowledge of Brahman.[91][140] Nikhalananda concurs, stating that (knowledge of)Atman andBrahman can only be reached bybuddhi, "reason,"[141] stating that mysticism is a kind of intuitive knowledge, whilebuddhi is the highest means of attaining knowledge.[142]
Since Gaudapada,[143] who adopted the Buddhist four-cornered negation which negates any positive predicates of 'the Absolute',[144][145][note 29] a central method in Advaita Vedanta to express the inexpressable is the method calledAdhyaropa Apavada.[143] In this method, which was highly estimated bySatchidanandendra 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.[147] In this method, "That which cannot be expressed is expressed through false attribution and subsequent denial."[148] 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."[148] For example, Atman, the real "I," is described aswitness, 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 7]
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.[web 7]
Moksha, liberation from suffering and rebirth and attaining immortality, is attained by disidentification from the body-mind complex and gaining self-knowledge as being in essenceAtman, and attaining knowledge of the identity ofAtman andBrahman.[1][73] According to Shankara, the individual Ātman 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.[149] The real self isSat, "the Existent," that is,Atman/Brahman.[150][151][note 1] Whereas the difference between Atman and non-Atman is deemed self-evident, knowledge of the identity of Atman and Brahman is revealed by theshruti, especially the Upanishadic statementtat tvam asi.
According to Shankara, a large number of Upanishadic statements reveal the identity ofAtman andBrahman. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, four of those statements, theMahavakyas, which are taken literal, in contrast to other statements, have a special importance in revealing this identity.[86][152] They are:
तत्त्वमसि,tat tvam asi,Chandogya VI.8.7. Traditionally rendered as "That Thou Art" (that you are),[153][154][155] withtat in Ch.U.6.8.7 referring tosat, "the Existent"[156][19][157]); correctly translated as "That's how [thus] you are,"[153][155][158] withtat in Ch.U.6.12.3, its original location from where it was copied to other verses,[153] referring to "the very nature of all existence as permeated by [the finest essence]"[159][160]
The longest chapter of Shankara'sUpadesasahasri, chapter 18, "That Art Thou," is devoted to considerations on the insight "I am ever-free, the existent" (sat), and the identity expressed inChandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 in themahavakya (great sentence) "tat tvam asi", "that thou art."[164][165] In this statement, according to Shankara,tat refers to 'Sat,[165] "the Existent"[156][19][166][167] Existence, Being,[web 9] or Brahman,[168] the Real, the "Root of the world,"[165][note 32] the true essence or root or origin of everything that exists.[19][166][web 9] "Tvam" refers to one's real I,pratyagatman or inner Self,[169] the "direct Witness within everything,"[18] "free from caste, family, and purifying ceremonies,"[170] the essence,Atman, which the individual at the core is.[171][172] As Shankara states in theUpadesasahasri:
Up.I.174: "Through such sentences as "Thou art That" one knows one's ownAtman, the Witness of all the internal organs." Up.I.18.190: "Through such sentences as "[Thou art] the Existent" [...] right knowledge concerning the innerAtman will become clearer." Up.I.18.193-194: "In the sentence "Thou art That" [...] [t]he word "That" means innerAtman."[173]
The statement "tat tvam asi" sheds the false notion thatAtman is different fromBrahman.[174] According toNakamura, the non-duality ofatman andBrahman "is a famous characteristic of Sankara's thought, but it was already taught by Sundarapandya"[175] (c.600 CE or earlier).[176] Shankara cites Sundarapandya in his comments toBrahma Sutra verse I.1.4:
When the metaphorical or falseatman is non-existent, [the ideas of my] child, [my] body are sublated. Therefore, when it is realized that 'I am the existentBrahman, atman', how can anyduty exist?[177]
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."[178]
Direct perception versus contemplation of theMahavakyas
In theUpadesasahasri Shankara, Shankara is ambivalent on the need for meditation on the Upanishadicmahavakya. He states that "right knowledge arises at the moment of hearing,"[38] and rejectsprasamcaksa orprasamkhyana meditation, that is, meditation on the meaning of the sentences, and in Up.II.3 recommendsparisamkhyana,[179] separatingAtman from everything that is notAtman, that is, the sense-objects and sense-organs, and the pleasant and unpleasant things and merit and demerit connected with them.[180] Yet, Shankara then concludes with declaring that onlyAtman exists, stating that "all the sentences of theUpanishads concerning non-duality ofAtman should be fully contemplated, should be contemplated."[181] As Mayeda states, "how they [prasamcaksa orprasamkhyana versusparisamkhyana] differ from each other in not known."[182]
Prasamkhyana was advocated by Mandana Misra,[183] the older contemporary of Shankara who was the most influential Advaitin until the 10th century.[35][184][note 9] "According to Mandana, themahavakyas are incapable, by themselves, of bringing aboutbrahmajnana. TheVedanta-vakyas convey an indirect knowledge which is made direct only by deep meditation (prasamkhyana). The latter is a continuous contemplation of the purport of themahavakyas.[185] Vācaspati Miśra, a student of Mandana Misra, agreed with Mandana Misra, and their stance is defended by the Bhamati-school, founded by Vācaspati Miśra.[186] In contrast, theVivarana school founded by Prakasatman (c. 1200–1300)[187] follows Shankara closely, arguing that themahavakyas are the direct cause of gaining knowledge.[188]
Shankara's insistence on direct knowledge as liberating also differs from theasparsa yoga described in Gaudapada'sMandukyakarika III.39-46.[189] In this practice of 'non-contact' (a-sparśa), 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.[190][52] Knowing that onlyAtman/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 isBrahman (MK III.46).[189]
In theUpadesasahasri Shankara discourages ritual worship such as oblations toDeva (God), because that assumes the Self within is different fromBrahman.[note 33][note 34] The "doctrine of difference" is wrong, asserts Shankara, because, "he who knows the Brahman is one and he is another, does not know Brahman".[195][196] The false notion thatAtman is different fromBrahman[174] is connected with the novice's conviction that (Upadesasaharsi II.1.25)
...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?[197]
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.[198] According to Shankara, the statement "Thou art That" "remove[s] the delusion of a hearer,"[199] "so through sentences as "Thou art That" one knows one's ownAtman, the witness of all internal organs,"[200] and not from any actions.[201][note 35] 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 [ofAtman] with the highestAtman."[203]
Philosophy: Reality/truth (Brahman, sat) and the world
The swan is an important motif in Advaita. The white colour of swan symbolisesSattva guṇa & the ability to discernSatya (Real, Eternal) fromMithya (Unreal, Changing), just as the mythical swanParamahamsa discerns milk from water.
Classical Advaita Vedānta states that all reality and everything in the experienced world has its root in Brahman, which is unchanging intelligent Consciousness.[4] To Advaitins, there is no duality between a Creator and the created universe.[4][204] All objects, all experiences, all matter, all consciousness, all awareness are somehow also this one fundamental reality Brahman.[4] Yet, the knowing self has various experiences of reality during the waking, dream and dreamless states,[205] and Advaita Vedānta acknowledges and admits that from the empirical perspective there are numerous distinctions.[206] Advaita explains this by postulating different levels of reality,[207][208][209][205] and by its theory of errors (anirvacaniya khyati).[210][4]
Vedānta is one of the six classicalHindudarśanas, the Indian traditions of religious philosophy and practice which accept the authority of the Vedas. The various schools of Vedanta aim to harmonise the diverging views presented in thePrasthantrayi, the Principal Upanishads,[211][212] along with theBrahma Sutras and theBhagavad Gitā, offering an integrated body of textual interpretations and religious practices which aim at the attainment ofmoksha, release or liberation from transmigratory existence.[213][214][note 36]
The Brahma Sutras, the constituting text of the Vedanta-tradition, rejects thepurusha-prakriti dualism of the samkhya-tradition,[20] and "much of theBrahmasutra appears to have been written to refute the perspective of the Samkhya school."[20]Samkhya postulates two independent primal principles,purusha (primal consciousness) andprakriti (nature, which includes both matter and cognition and emotions). In samkhya,prakriti consists of three qualities (Guṇas), which are in balance, until they come in contact withpurusha and the equilibrium is disturbed. From thispradhana then evolves the material universe, distinct frompurusha, thereby postulatingpurusha as the efficient cause of all existence, andprakriti as its material cause or origin.[217]
While closely related toSamkhya,[218][20] the Advaita Vedānta tradition rejects this dualism, instead stating that Reality cannot evolve from an inert, consciousness- and intelligence-less principle or essence. Brahman, which is intelligent and consciousness,[20] is the sole Reality,[219][220] "that from which the origination, subsistence, and dissolution of this universe proceed,"[217] as stated in the second verse of the Brahman Sutras. In Samkhya,purusha is the efficient cause, andprakriti is the material cause:purusha causesprakriti to manifest as the natural world. Advaita, like all Vedanta schools, states that Brahman, consciousness, is both the efficient and the material cause, that from which the material universe evolves.[221] Yet, in the Brahmasutras Brahma is a dynamic force, while the Advaita-tradition regards Brahman as an "essentially unchanging and static reality,"[21] since Brahman changing into something else would mean that Brahman would not exist anymore, while a partial change would leave Brahman divided.[21]
By accepting that Brahman is the sole, unchanging reality, various theoretical difficulties arise which are not answered by the Brahmasutras, which asserts that the Upanishadic views have to be accepted due to their scriptural authority, "regardless of logical problems and philosophical inconsistencies."[21] Advaita and other Vedānta traditions face several problems, for which they offer different solutions.[222][219][220] According to Deutsch and Dalvi, "The basic problem of Vedanta [is] the relation between the plural, complex, changing phenomenal world and the Brahman in which it substantially subsists."[19] According to Mayeda, following the post-Shankara[20] predicatesat-cit-ananda, three problems emerge. First, how did Brahman, which issat ('existence'), without any distinction, become manifold material universe? Second, how did Brahman, which iscit ('consciousness'), create the material world? Third, if Brahman isananda ('bliss'), why did the empirical world of sufferings arise? TheBrahma Sutras do not answer these philosophical queries, and later Vedantins including Shankara had to resolve them.[222]
To solve these questions, Shankara introduced the concept of "Unevolved Name-and-Form," or primal matter corresponding toPrakriti, from which the world evolves,[223] coming close to Samkhya dualism.[224] Shankara's notion of "Unevolved Name-and-Form" was not adopted by the later Advaita tradition; instead, the later tradition turnedavidya into a metaphysical principle, namelymulavidya or "root ignorance," a metaphysical substance which is the "primal material cause of the universe (upadana)."[225] In this view, Brahman alone is real, and the phenomenal world is an appearance (maya) or "an unreal manifestation (vivarta) of Brahman."[23]Prakasatmans (13th c.) defense ofvivarta to explain the origin of the world, which declared phenomenal reality to be anillusion,[24] became the dominant explanation, with which the primacy of Atman/Brahman can be maintained.[219][220]
A main question in all schools of Vedanta is the relation between the individual self (jiva) andAtman/Brahman.[226] As Shankara and his followers regard Atman/Brahman to be the ultimate Real,jivanatman is "ultimately [to be] of the nature of Atman/Brahman."[219][6] This truth is established from a literal reading of selected parts[86] of the oldestPrincipal Upanishads andBrahma Sutras, and is also found in parts of theBhagavad Gitā and numerous other Hindu texts,[4] and is regarded to be self-evident.[134][note 37] Great effort is made to show the correctness of this reading, and its compatibility with reason and experience, by criticizing other systems of thought.[134]Vidya, correct knowledge or understanding of the identity ofjivan-ātman andBrahman, destroys or makes nullavidya ('false knowledge'), and results inliberation.[228][note 38]
Shankara proposes three levels of reality, using sublation as the ontological criterion:[207][208][209]
Pāramārthika (paramartha, absolute), the Reality that is metaphysically true and ontologically accurate. It is the state of experiencing that "which is absolutely real and into which both other reality levels can be resolved". This reality is the highest; it can't be sublated (assimilated) by any other.[207][229] Ultimate reality only consists of Brahman. Everything else is like a dream.[230]
Vyāvahārika (vyavahara), orsamvriti-saya,[231] consisting of the empirical or pragmatical reality. It is ever changing over time, thus empirically true at a given time and context but notmetaphysically true. It is "our world of experience, the phenomenal world that we handle every day when we are awake". It is the level in which bothjiva (living creatures or individual Selfs) andIswara are true; here, the material world is also true but this is incomplete reality and is sublatable.[229][232]Vyāvahārika reality results from superimposing ignorance on Brahman, like seeing a snake instead of a rope.[230]
Prātibhāsika (pratibhasika, apparent reality, unreality), "reality based on imagination alone". It is the level of experience in which the mind constructs its own reality. Well-known examples ofpratibhasika is the imaginary reality such as the "roaring of a lion" fabricated in dreams during one's sleep, and the perception of a rope in the dark as being a snake.[229][233][234]
Absolute and relative reality are valid and true in their respective contexts, but only from their respective particular perspectives.[205][206][235] John Grimes explains this Advaita doctrine of absolute and relative truth with the example of light and darkness.[206] From the sun's perspective, it neither rises nor sets, there is no darkness, and "all is light". From the perspective of a person on earth, sun does rise and set, there is both light and darkness, not "all is light", there are relative shades of light and darkness. Both are valid realities and truths, given their perspectives. Yet, they are contradictory. What is true from one point of view, states Grimes, is not from another. To Advaita Vedānta, this does not mean there are two truths and two realities, but it only means that the same one Reality and one Truth is explained or experienced from two different perspectives.[206][236]
As they developed these theories, Advaita Vedānta scholars were influenced by some ideas from theNyaya,Samkhya andYoga schools of Hindu philosophy.[237][209] These theories have not enjoyed universal consensus among Advaitins, and various competing ontological interpretations have flowered within the Advaita tradition.[4][238][note 39]
Ātman (IAST: ātman,Sanskrit: आत्मन्) is the "real self"[239][240][241][242][note 40] or "essence"[web 11][note 41] of the individual. It iscaitanya, Pure Consciousness,[243] a consciousness, states Sthaneshwar Timalsina, that is "self-revealed, self-evident and self-aware (svaprakashata),"[242] and, states Payne, "in some way permanent, eternal, absolute or unchanging."[note 41] It is self-existent awareness, limitless and non-dual.[78] It is "a stable subjectivity, or a unity of consciousness through all the specific states of individuated phenomenality."[244] Ātman, 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.[245] 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."[246]
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 mistakenly superimposed on Atman, resulting in notions as "I am this" and "This is mine."[247] One's real self is not the constantly changing body, not the desires, not the emotions, not the ego, nor the dualistic mind,[248][249][250] but the introspective, inwardly self-conscious "on-looker" (saksi),[251] which is in reality completely disconnected from the non-Atman.[247]
Thejivatman or individual self is a mere reflection of singular Atman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies.[22] It is "not an individual subject of consciousness,"[244] but the same in each person and identical to the universal eternalBrahman,[79] a term used interchangeably with Atman.[252]
Atman is often translated assoul,[note 42] though the two concepts differ significantly, since "soul" includes mental activities, whereas "Atman" solely refers to detached witness-consciousness.
Advaita posits three states of consciousness, namely waking (jagrat), dreaming (svapna), deep sleep (suṣupti), which are empirically experienced by human beings,[253][254] and correspond to theThree Bodies Doctrine:[255]
The first state is the waking state, in which we are aware of our daily world.[256] This is the gross body.
The second state is the dreaming mind. This is thesubtle body.[256]
The third state is the state of deep sleep. This is thecausal body.[256]
Advaita also posits "the fourth,"Turiya, which some describe as pure consciousness, the background that underlies and transcends these three common states of consciousness.[web 12][web 13] Turiya is the state of liberation, where states Advaita school, one experiences the infinite (ananta) and non-different (advaita/abheda), that is free from the dualistic experience, the state in whichajativada, non-origination, is apprehended.[257] According to Candradhara Sarma, Turiya state is where the foundational Self is realized, it is measureless, neither cause nor effect, all pervading, without suffering, blissful, changeless, self-luminous,[note 5] real, immanent in all things and transcendent.[258] Those who have experienced the Turiya stage of self-consciousness have reached the pure awareness of their own non-dual Self as one with everyone and everything, for them the knowledge, the knower, the known becomes one, they are theJivanmukta.[259][260][261][262][263]
Advaita traces the foundation of this ontological theory in more ancient Sanskrit texts.[264] For example, chapters 8.7 through 8.12 ofChandogya Upanishad discuss the "four states of consciousness" as awake, dream-filled sleep, deep sleep, and beyond deep sleep.[264][265] One of the earliest mentions ofTuriya, in the Hindu scriptures, occurs in verse 5.14.3 of theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad.[note 43] The idea is also discussed in other early Upanishads.[266]
Brahma Jnanavali Mala, attributed to Adi Shankara:[web 14]
6. I am the indwelling consciousness, I am calm (free from all agitation), I am beyondprakriti (maya), I am of the nature of eternal bliss, I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.
14. I am a mass of awareness and of consciousness. I am not a doer nor an experiencer. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.
In the Advaita tradition, consciousness is svayam prakāśa, "self-luminous,"[4][267][note 5] which means that "self is pure awareness by nature."[268] According to Dasgupta, it is "the most fundamental concept of the Vedanta."[269] According toT. R. V. Murti, the Vedanta concept is explained as follows:
The point to be reached is a foundational consciousness that is unconditional, self-evident, and immediate (svayam-prakāśa). 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.[270][note 44]
According to Jonardon Ganeri, the concept was introduced by the Buddhist philosopherDignāga (c.480–c.540 CE), and accepted by the Vedanta tradition;[268] according to Zhihua Yao, the concept has older roots in theMahasanghika school.[271]
According to Advaita Vedānta,Brahman is the true Self, consciousness, awareness, intelligent, possessed with will, and the only Reality (Sat).[77][272][273][note 45] Brahman isParamarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth"[274] or absolute Real.[275] It is That which isunborn and unchanging,[272][276] and immortal.[note 7] Other thanBrahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and thereforemaya. Brahman is "not sublatable",[77] which means it cannot be superseded by a still higher reality:[277]
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".[77]
In Advaita, Brahman is the substrate and cause of all changes.[272][276] Refuting samkhya, which considerspradhana or prakriti the material cause (primal matter) and purusha the efficient cause,[278] in Advaita Vedanta Brahman is considered to be the material cause[note 46] and the efficient cause[note 47] of all that exists.[279][280][281] The Brahma Sutras I.1.2 state that Brahman is:
...that from which the origination, subsistence, and dissolution of this universe proceed.[282][note 48]
Advaita's Upanishadic roots state Brahman's qualities[note 49] to beSat-cit-ānanda,[284][285][286] "true being-consciousness-bliss,"[286][287] or "Eternal Bliss Consciousness".[288][note 50] A distinction is made betweennirguna Brahman, formless Brahman, andsaguna Brahman, Brahman with form, that is,Ishvara, God.Nirguna Brahman is undescribable, and the Upanishadicneti neti ('not this, not that' or 'neither this, nor that') negates all conceptualizations of Brahman.[85][289]
Avidyā is a central tenet of Shankara's Advaita, and became the main target of Ramanuja's criticism of Shankara.[290][291] In Shankara's view, avidyā isadhyasa, "the superimposition of the qualities of one thing upon another."[292] As Shankara explains in theAdhyasa-bhasya, the introduction to theBrahmasutrabhasya:
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 toavidya, we're steeped inloka drsti, the empirical view.[293] From the beginning we only perceive the empirical world of multiplicity, taking it to be the only and true reality.[293][294] Due to avidyā there is ignorance, or nescience, of the real Self,Atman/Brahman, mistakenly identifying the Self with the body-mind complex.[web 16] Withparmartha drsti ignorance is removed andvidya is acquired, and the Real, distinctionless Brahman is perceived as the True reality.[293]
The notion of avidyā and its relationship to Brahman creates a crucial philosophical issue within Advaita Vedānta thought: how can avidyā appear in Brahman, since Brahman is pure consciousness?[295] For Shankara,avidya is a perceptual or psychological error.[225] 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."[296] The later tradition diverged from Shankara by turningavidya into a metaphysical principle, namelymulavidya 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.[225][297] According to Mayeda, "[i]n order to save monism, they characterizedavidya as indefinable as real or unreal (sadasadbhyam anirvacanya), belonging neither to the category of being nor to that of non-being."[225] In the 20th century, this theory ofmulavidya became a point of strong contention among Advaita Vedantins, withSatchidanandendra Saraswati arguing that Padmapada and Prakasatman had misconstrued Shanakara's stance.[298]
Shankara did not give a 'location' ofavidya, giving precedence to the removal of ignorance.[299][note 51] Sengaku Mayeda writes, in his commentary and translation ofAdi Shankara's Upadesasahasri:
Certainly the most crucial problem which Sankara left for his followers is that of avidyā. If the concept is logically analysed, it would lead the Vedanta philosophy toward dualism or nihilism and uproot its fundamental position.[300]
The later Advaita-tradition diverged from Shankara, trying to determinate a locus ofavidya,[301] with the Bhamati-school locatingavidya in thejiva c.q.prakriti, while the Vivarana-school locates it in Brahman.[302][301]
In Advaita Vedanta, the perceived empirical world, "including people and other existence," is Māyā, "appearance."[303][304] 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.[303] Due toavidya, we take thephenomenal world to be the final reality,[web 16] while in Reality onlySat ( True Reality, Brahman) is Real and unchanging.[305]
While Shankara took a realistic stance, and his explanations are "remote from any connotation of illusion," the 13th century scholarPrakasatman, founder of the influentialVivarana school, introduced the notion that the world is illusory.[24][219][220] According to Hacker, maya is not a prominent theme for Shankara, in contrast to the later Advaita tradition, and "the wordmaya has for [Shankara] hardly any terminological weight."[306]
Due to avidya, atman is covered bykoshas (sheaths or bodies), which hide man's true nature. According to theTaittiriya Upanishad, the Atman is covered by five koshas, usually rendered "sheath".[307] They are often visualized like the layers of an onion.[308] From gross to fine the five sheaths are:
Cause and effect are an important topic in all schools ofVedanta.[note 52] Two sorts of causes are recognised, namelyNimitta kāraṇa, theefficient cause, that which causes the existence of the universe, andUpādāna kāraṇa, thematerial cause, that from which the matery of this universe comes.[310] All schools of Vedānta agree that Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause, and all subscribe to the theory ofSatkāryavāda,[web 18] which means that the effect is pre-existent in the cause.[23][note 53]
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.[23] According to Nicholson, "Mediaeval Vedantins distinguished two basic positions."Parinamavada is the idea that the world is a real transformation (parinama) of Brahman.[23]Vivartavada is the idea that
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.[23]
20th verse ofBrahmajnanavalimala, attributed to Shankara:
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः
Brahman is real, the world is an illusion Brahman andJiva are not different.
TheBrahma Sutras, the ancient Vedantins, most sub-schools of Vedānta,[23][web 18] as well as Samkhya argue forparinamavada.[web 18] The "most visible advocates of Vivartavada," states Nicholson, are the Advaitins, the followers of Shankara.[23] "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".[web 18][note 54]
Yet, Adi Shankara himself most likely explained causality throughparinamavada.[web 18][23][24][312] 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 uponBrahman."[312]
Shankara introduced the concept of "Unevolved Name-and-Form," or primal matter corresponding toPrakriti, from which the world evolves,[223] but this concept was not adopted by the later Advaita tradition.[24] Vivartavada became the dominant explanation, with which the primacy of Atman/Brahman can be maintained.[219][220] Scholars such as Hajime Nakamura and Paul Hacker already noted that Adi Shankara did not advocateVivartavada, and his explanations are "remote from any connotation of illusion".[24][note 55]
2. I am Brahman (pure consciousness). It is pure consciousness that appears as this universe.
It was the 13th century scholar Prakasatman, who founded the influentialVivarana school, who gave a definition tovivarta, introducing the notion that the world is illusory. It is Prakasatman's theory that is sometimes misunderstood as Adi Shankara's position.[24] Andrew Nicholson concurs with Hacker and other scholars, adding that thevivarta-vada isn't Shankara's theory, that Shankara's ideas appear closer toparinama-vada, and thevivarta explanation likely emerged gradually in Advaita subschool later.[web 18][note 56]
Some 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".[315] However, Deutsch adds, ethicsdoes 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".[315][316] According to Advaita Vedānta, 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.[317] Advaitin ethics includes lack of craving, lack of dual distinctions between one's own Self and another being's, good and justKarma.[318]
The values and ethics in Advaita Vedānta 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."[80] 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".[80] These ideas are exemplified in theIsha Upanishad – asruti for Advaita, as follows:
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 6–7, Translated by A Rambachan[319]
Adi Shankara, in verse 1.25 to 1.26 of hisUpadeśasāhasrī, asserts that the Self-knowledge is understood and realized when one's mind is purified by the observation ofYamas (ethical precepts) such asAhimsa (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.[320] Rituals and rites can help focus and prepare the mind for the journey to Self-knowledge,[321] but can be abandoned when moving on to "hearing, reflection, and meditation on the Upanishads."[322]
Elsewhere, in verses 1.26–1.28, the Advaita text Upadesasahasri states the ethical premise of equality of all beings. AnyBheda (discrimination), states Shankara, based on class or caste or parentage is a mark of inner error and lack of liberating knowledge.[323] This text states that the fully liberated person understands and practices the ethics of non-difference.[323]
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.
TheUpanishads, theBhagavad Gitā andBrahma Sutras are the central texts of the Advaita Vedānta tradition, lending authority to the doctrines about the identity ofAtman andBrahman and their changeless nature.[6][325]
Adi Shankara gave a nondualist interpretation of these texts in his commentaries.Adi Shankara'sBhashya (commentaries) have become central texts in the Advaita Vedānta philosophy, but are one among many ancient and medieval manuscripts available or accepted in this tradition.[32] The subsequent Advaita tradition has further elaborated on these sruti and commentaries. Adi Shankara is also credited for the famous textNirvana Shatakam.
TheUpanishads,[note 58] orŚruti prasthāna; considered theŚruti (Vedic scriptures) foundation ofVedānta.[note 59][214][329][330] Most scholars, statesEliot Deutsch, are convinced that the Śruti in general, and the Upanishads in particular, express "a very rich diversity" of ideas, with the earlyUpanishads such asBrihadaranyaka Upanishad andChandogya Upanishad being more readily amenable toAdvaita Vedānta school's interpretation than the middle or laterUpanishads.[331][332] In addition to the oldestUpanishads, states Williams, theSannyasa Upanishads group composed in pre-Shankara times "express a decidedlyAdvaita outlook".[333]
TheBrahma Sutras, orNyaya prasthana /Yukti prasthana; considered the reason-based foundation ofVedānta. TheBrahma Sutras attempted to synthesize the teachings of theUpanishads. The diversity in the teachings of theUpanishads necessitated the systematization of these teachings. The only extant version of this synthesis is theBrahma Sutras ofBadarayana. Like theUpanishads,Brahma Sutras is also an aphoristic text, and can be interpreted as a non-theisticAdvaita Vedānta text or as a theisticDvaita Vedānta text. This has led, states Stephen Phillips, to its varying interpretations by scholars of various sub-schools ofVedānta.[334] TheBrahmasutra is considered by the Advaita school as theNyaya Prasthana (canonical base for reasoning).[335]
TheBhagavad Gitā, orSmriti prasthāna; considered theSmriti (remembered tradition) foundation ofVedānta.[335] It has been widely studied byAdvaita scholars, including a commentary byAdi Shankara.[139][336]
The Advaita Vedānta tradition considers the knowledge claims in the Vedas to be the crucial part of the Vedas, not itskarma-kanda (ritual injunctions).[6] The knowledge claims about self being identical to the nature ofAtman/Brahman are found in theUpanishads, which Advaita Vedānta has regarded as "errorless revealed truth."[6] 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.[6]
Advaita Vedānta, like all orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, accepts as anepistemic premise thatŚruti (Vedic literature) is a reliable source of knowledge.[214][329][330] The Śruti includes the four Vedas including its four layers of embedded texts – the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the early Upanishads.[337] 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.[338][336] TheBrahmasutra (also called Vedānta 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 remainingpramanas.[338][335] This theme has been central to the Advaita school, making theBrahmasutra as a common reference and a consolidated textual authority for Advaita.[338][339]
The Bhagavad Gitā, 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.[139][336]
A 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 theUpadesasahasri are considered genuine and stand out.[citation needed]
Post-Shankara Advaita saw the composition of both scholarly commentaries and treatises, as well as, from late mediaeval times (14th century) on, popular works and compositions which incorporate Yoga ideas. These include notable texts mistakenly attributed to Shankara, such as theVivekachudamani,Atma bodha, and Aparokshanubhuti; and other texts likeAdvaita Bodha Deepika andDŗg-Dŗśya-Viveka. Texts which influenced the Advaita tradition include theAvadhuta Gita, theYoga Vasistha, and theYoga Yajnavalkya.[citation needed]
Advaita Vedānta is not just a philosophical system, but also a tradition of monasticrenunciation. Philosophy and renunciation are closely related:[web 22]
Most of the notable authors in the advaita tradition were members of the sannyasa tradition, and both sides of the tradition share the same values, attitudes and metaphysics.[web 22]
Shankara, himself considered to be an incarnation ofShiva,[web 22] is credited with establishing the Dashanami Sampradaya, organizing a section of theEkadandi monks under an umbrella grouping of ten names.[web 22] Several Hindu monastic and Ekadandi traditions, however, remained outside the organisation of the Dasanāmis.[341][342][343]
Sankara is said to have organised the Hindu monks of these ten sects or names under fourMaṭhas (Sanskrit:मठ) (monasteries), called theAmnaya Mathas, with the headquarters atDvārakā in the West,Jagannatha Puri in the East,Sringeri in the South andBadrikashrama in the North.[web 22] 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 themathas can be found before the 14th century CE.[344] 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.[345] According to Hacker, these mathas may have originated as late as the 14th century, to propagate Shankara's view of Advaita.[346][note 61][note 62] According to another tradition in Kerala, after Sankara'ssamadhi at Vadakkunnathan Temple, his disciples founded four mathas in Thrissur, namelyNaduvil 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 dasanāmis associated with the Sankara maths follow the procedures attributed to Adi Śankara, some of these orders remained partly or fully independent in their belief and practices; and outside the official control of the Sankara maths. The advaita sampradaya is not aSaiva sect,[web 22][350] despite the historical links with Shaivism.[note 63] Nevertheless, contemporary Sankaracaryas have more influence among Saiva communities than among Vaisnava communities.[web 22]
TheSmarta tradition ofHinduism is a synthesis of various strands of Indian religious thought and practice, which developed with theHindu synthesis, dating back to the early first century CE.[note 64] It is particularly found in south and west India, and reveres all Hindu divinities as a step in their spiritual pursuit.[352][353][354] Theirworship practice is calledPanchayatana puja.[355][352] The worship symbolically consists of five deities:Shiva,Vishnu,Devi orDurga,Surya and anIshta Devata or any personal god of devotee's preference.[353][356]
In the Smarta tradition, Advaita Vedānta ideas combined withbhakti are its foundation. Adi Shankara is regarded as the greatest teacher[354] and reformer of the Smarta.[357] According toAlf Hiltebeitel, Shankara's Advaita Vedānta and practices became the doctrinal unifier of previously conflicting practices with thesmarta tradition.[note 65]
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 spiritualitysaguna Brahman.[359][355] 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 – as "That art Thou".[359][360]
Advaita Vedānta andother schools of Hindu philosophy share numerous terminology, doctrines, and dialectical techniques withBuddhism.[361][362] According to a 1918 paper by theBuddhist scholar O. Rozenberg, "a precise differentiation between Brahmanism and Buddhism is impossible to draw."[361]T. R. V. Murti notices that "the ultimate goal" ofVedānta,Sāṃkhya, andMahāyāna Buddhism is "remarkably similar"; while Advaita Vedānta postulates a "foundational self", according to Murti "Mahāyāna Buddhism implicitly affirms the existence of a deep underlying reality behind all empirical manifestations in its conception ofśūnyatā (the indeterminate, the void), orvijñapti-mātra (consciousness only), ortathātā (thatness), ordhārmata (noumenal reality)."[270] According to Frank Whaling, the similarities between Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism are not limited to the terminology and some doctrines, but also includes practice. The monastic practices and monk tradition in Advaita Vedānta are similar to those found in Buddhism.[363]
The influence ofMahāyāna Buddhism on Advaita Vedānta has been significant.[363][364] Sharma points out that the early commentators on theBrahma Sūtras were allrealists, orpantheist realists. He states that they were influenced by Buddhism, particularly during the 5th–6th centuries CE with the development of theYogācāra school ofBuddhist philosophy.[365]Von Glasenapp states that there was a mutual influence betweenVedānta and Buddhism.[note 66]S. N. Dasgupta and Mohanta suggest that Buddhism and Advaita Vedānta represent "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from theUpanishadic period to the time ofŚaṅkara."[366][note 67]
The influence of Buddhist doctrines onGauḍapāda has been a vexed question.[369][370] Modern scholarship generally accepts that Gauḍapāda was influenced by Buddhism, at least in terms of using Buddhist terminology to explain his ideas, but adds that Gauḍapāda was a Vedantin and not a Buddhist.[369]Ādi Śaṅkara, states Natalia Isaeva, incorporated "into his own system a Buddhist notion ofmāyā which had not been minutely elaborated in the Upanishads".[361] According to Mudgal, Śaṅkara's Advaita view andNāgārjuna'sMādhyamaka view of ultimate reality are compatible because they are both transcendental, indescribable, non-dual and only arrived at through avia negativa orneti neti. Mudgal concludes therefore that "the difference betweenŚūnyavādaphilosophy of Buddhism andAdvaitaphilosophy of Hinduism may be a matter of emphasis, not of kind".[371] Similarly, there are many points of contact between the BuddhistYogācāra school and Śaṅkara's Advaita tradition.[372] According to S. N. Dasgupta,
Śaṅkara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. HisBrahman was very much like theśūnya ofNāgārjuna [...] The debts of Śaṅkara to theself-luminosity[note 5] of theVijñānavāda Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Śaṅkara byVijñāna Bhikṣu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Śaṅkara's philosophy is largely a compound ofVijñānavāda andŚūnyavāda Buddhism with the Upanishadic notion of the permanence of self superadded.[373]
The Advaita Vedānta tradition has historically rejected accusations of crypto-Buddhism highlighting their respective views onĀtman,Anattā, andBrahman.[374] Yet, someearly Buddhist texts (1st millennium CE), such as theMahāyāna Buddhist scripturesTathāgatagarbha Sūtras suggest"self-like" concepts, variously calledTathāgatagarbha or "Buddha nature".[375][376] In modern era studies, scholars such as Wayman state that these "self-like" concepts are neither self nor sentient being, nor individual soul, nor personality.[377][378] Some scholars posit that theTathāgatagarbha Sūtras were writtento promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists.[379][380][381]
The epistemological foundations of Buddhism and Advaita Vedānta are different. Buddhism accepts two valid means to reliable and correct knowledge—perception and inference, while Advaita Vedānta accepts six (described elsewhere in this article).[124][382][383] However, some Buddhists in history, have argued that Buddhist scriptures are a reliable source of spiritual knowledge, corresponding to Advaita'sŚabda pramana, however Buddhists have treated their scriptures as a form of inference method.[384]
Advaita Vedānta posits asubstance 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 callsĀtman/Brahman.[385] 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.[386] In contrast,Buddhism posits aprocess ontology, also called as "event ontology".[387][386] According toBuddhist philosophy, particularly after the rise of ancientMahāyānaBuddhist scholarship, the concept ofimpermanence (anicca) is understood as one of thethree marks of existence (trilakṣaṇa):[388] there is neither empirical nor absolute permanent reality, because all phenomena are characterized by theirlack of a solid and independent existence (svabhāva), and ontology can be explained as a process.[387][389][note 68]
Rāmāṉuja, a Hindu saint and founder of theVishishtadvaita Vedānta school (12th century CE), similarly accused Ādi Śaṅkara of being aPrachanna Bauddha, that is, a "crypto-Buddhist",[394] and someone who was undermining thetheisticBhakti-oriented devotionalism.[363]
The Advaita Vedānta ideas, particularly of 8th century Adi Shankara, were challenged by theistic Vedānta philosophies that emerged centuries later, such as the 11th-centuryVishishtadvaita (qualifiednondualism) ofRamanuja, and the 14th-centuryDvaita (theistic dualism) ofMadhvacharya.[395] Their application of Vedanta philosophy to ground their faith turned Vedanta into a major factor in India's religious landscape.[396]
Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita school andShankara's Advaita school are both nondualism Vedānta schools,[397][398] 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 Vedānta believed that some Selfs are eternally doomed and damned.[399][400] 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.[401][402] 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 thenirguna Brahman.[398][403][404] 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, andsaguna Brahman with attributes is also real.[402] God, like man, states Ramanuja, has both soul and body, and all of the world of matter is the glory of God's body.[397] 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 withnirguna Brahman.[397][401][402]
Vallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE), the proponent of the philosophy ofShuddhadvaita 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.[405] That is why shuddhadvaita is known as 'Unmodified transformation' or 'Avikṛta Pariṇāmavāda'. 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).[406]
Madhvacharya was also a critic ofAdvaita Vedānta. Advaita's nondualism asserted that Atman (Self) and Brahman are identical (both in bondage and liberation[407]), there is interconnected oneness of all Selfs and Brahman, and there are no pluralities.[408][409] Madhva in contrast asserted that Atman (Self) and Brahman are different (both in bondage and liberation[407]), onlyVishnu is the Lord (Brahman), individual Selfs are also different and depend on Vishnu, and there are pluralities.[408][409] Madhvacharya stated that both Advaita Vedānta andMahayana Buddhism were anihilistic school of thought.[410] Madhvacharya wrote four major texts, includingUpadhikhandana andTattvadyota, primarily dedicated to criticizing Advaita.[410]
Followers ofISKCON are highly critical of Advaita Vedānta, regarding it asmāyāvāda, identical to Mahayana Buddhism.[web 25][web 26]
Within the ancient and medieval texts of Hindu traditions, such asVaishnavism,Shaivism andShaktism, the ideas of Advaita Vedānta have had a major influence.[note 69] Advaita Vedānta influenced Krishna Vaishnavism in the different parts of India.[411] One of its most popular text, theBhagavata Purana, adopts and integrates in Advaita Vedānta philosophy.[412][413][414] TheBhagavata Purana is generally accepted by scholars to have been composed in the second half of 1st millennium CE.[415][416]
In the ancient and medieval literature ofShaivism, called theĀgamas, the influence of Advaita Vedānta is once again prominent.[417][418][419] Of the 92Āgamas, ten areDvaita texts, eighteen areBhedabheda, and sixty-four areAdvaita texts.[420][421] According to Natalia Isaeva, there is an evident and natural link between 6th-century Gaudapada's Advaita Vedānta ideas andKashmir Shaivism.[422]
Shaktism, the Hindu tradition where a goddess is considered identical to Brahman, has similarly flowered from a syncretism of the monist premises of Advaita Vedānta and dualism premises of Samkhya–Yoga school of Hindu philosophy, sometimes referred to asShaktadavaitavada (literally, the path of nondualisticShakti).[423][424][425]
The historiography of Advaita Vedanta is coloured by Orientalist notions,[429][note 71] whilemodern formulations of Advaita Vedānta, which developed as a reaction to westernOrientalism andPerennialism[431] have "become a dominant force in Indian intellectual thought."[432] 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 Vedānta in the centuries leading up to the colonial period."[433]
The Upanishads form the basic texts, of which Vedānta gives an interpretation.[434] The Upanishads do not contain "a rigorous philosophical inquiry identifying the doctrines and formulating the supporting arguments".[435][note 72] This philosophical inquiry was performed by thedarsanas, the various philosophical schools.[437][note 73]
TheBrahma Sutras of Bādarāyana, also called theVedānta Sutra,[439] were compiled in its present form around 400–450 CE,[440] but "the great part of theSutra must have been in existence much earlier than that".[440] Estimates of the date of Bādarāyana's lifetime differ between 200 BCE and 200 CE.[441] The Brahma Sutra is a critical study of the teachings of the Upanishads, possibly "written from a Bhedābheda Vedāntic viewpoint."[web 18] Bādarāyana was not the first person to systematise the teachings of the Upanishads.[442] He refers to seven Vedantic teachers before him.[442]
Two Advaita writings predating Maṇḍana Miśra and Shankara were known to scholars such as Nakamura in the first half of 20th-century, namely theVākyapadīya, written byBhartṛhari (second half 5th century[27]), and theMāndūkya-kārikā written byGauḍapāda (7th century).[28] Later scholarship added theSannyasa Upanishads (first centuries CE[443]) to the earliest known corpus, some of which are of a sectarian nature,[444] and have a strong Advaita Vedānta outlook.[445][446][447]
According 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".[28] In his commentaries, Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his Sampradaya.[112] In the beginning of his commentary on the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Shankara salutes the teachers of the Brahmavidya Sampradaya.[web 27] Pre-Shankara doctrines and sayings can be traced in the works of the later schools, which does give insight into the development of early Vedānta philosophy.[28]
According to tradition, Gauḍapāda (6th century)[448] was the teacher ofGovinda Bhagavatpada and the grandteacher of Shankara. Gauḍapāda wrote or compiled[449] theMāṇḍukya Kārikā, also known as theGauḍapāda Kārikā or theĀgama Śāstra.[450] TheMāṇḍukya Kārikā is a commentary in verse form on theMāṇḍūkya Upanishad, one of the shortestUpanishads consisting of just 13 prose sentences. Of the ancient literature related to Advaita Vedānta, the oldest surviving complete text is theMāṇḍukya Kārikā.[451] TheMāṇḍūkya Upanishad was considered to be aŚruti before the era of Adi Shankara, but not treated as particularly important.[450] In later post-Shankara period its value became far more important, and regarded as expressing the essence of the Upanishad philosophy. The entireKarika became a key text for the Advaita school in this later era.[452][note 74]
Gaudapada took over the Yogachara teaching ofvijñapti-mātra, "representation-only," which states that the empirical reality that we experience is a fabrication of the mind, experienced by consciousness-an-sich,[144][note 75] and the four-cornered negation, which negates any positive predicates of 'the Absolute'.[144][145][note 76] Gaudapada "wove [both doctrines] into the philosophy ofMandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara".[455][note 77] In this view,
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 (manodṛśya or manaspandita). The pluralistic world is imagined by the mind (saṁkalpa) and this false projection is sponsored by the illusory factor called māyā.[web 28]
Maṇḍana Miśra, an older contemporary of Shankara,[458] was a Mimamsa scholar and a follower ofKumarila, but also wrote a seminal text on Advaita that has survived into the modern era, theBrahma-siddhi.[459][460] 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.[43] For a couple of centuries he seems to have been regarded as "the most important representative of the Advaita position,"[35][184][note 78] and the "theory of error" set forth in theBrahma-siddhi became the normative Advaita Vedanta theory of error.[461]
Very little is known about Shankara. According to Dalal, "Hagiographical accounts of his life, theŚaṅkaravijayas ("Conquests of Śaṅkara"), were composed several centuries after his death,"[web 6] in the 14th to 17th century, and established Shankara as a rallying symbol of values in a time when most of India was conquered by Muslims.[34] He is often considered to be the founder of the Advaita Vedānta school, but was actually a systematizer, not a founder.[web 6][462]
Shankara was a scholar who synthesized and systematizedAdvaita-vāda thought which already existed at his lifetime.[462] 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 Śankara".[462] According to Nakamura, after the growing influence of Buddhism on Vedānta, culminating in the works of Gauḍapāda, Adi Shankara gave a Vedantic character to the Buddhistic elements in these works,[463] synthesising and rejuvenating the doctrine of Advaita.[464] According to Koller, using ideas in ancient Indian texts, Shankara systematized the foundation for AdvaitaVedānta in the 8th century, reformingBadarayana's Vedānta tradition.[465] According to Mayeda, Shankara represents a turning point in the development of Vedānta,[463] yet he also notices that it is only since Deussens's praise that Shankara "has usually been regarded as the greatest philosopher of India."[466] Mayeda further notes that Shankara was primarily concerned withmoksha, "and not with the establishment of a complete system of philosophy or theology,"[466] following Potter, who qualifies Shankara as a "speculative philosopher."[467] 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."[468]
Adi Shankara is best known for his reviews and commentaries (Bhasyas) on ancient Indian texts. HisBrahmasutrabhasya (literally, commentary onBrahma Sutra) is a fundamental text of the Vedānta school of Hinduism.[339] His commentaries on tenMukhya (principal) Upanishads are also considered authentic by scholars.[339][469] Other authentic works of Shankara include commentaries on the Bhagavad Gitā (part of hisPrasthana Trayi Bhasya).[139] He also authoredUpadesasahasri, his most important original philosophical work.[465][470] The authenticity of Shankara being the author ofVivekacūḍāmaṇi[471] has been questioned, and "modern scholars tend to reject its authenticity as a work by Shankara."[472]
While Shankara has an unparalleled status in the history of Advaita Vedanta, scholars have questioned the traditional narrative of Shankara's early influence in India.[34][35][184] Until the 10th century Shankara was overshadowed by his older contemporaryMaṇḍana Miśra, who was considered to be the major representative of Advaita.[35][184] Only when Vacaspati Misra, an influential student of Maṇḍana Miśra, harmonised the teachings of Shankara with those of Maṇḍana Miśra, Shankara's teachings gained prominence.[473] 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.[474] In this view, Shankara's influential student Padmapada misunderstood Shankara, while his views were maintained by the Suresvara school.[474] According toSatchidanandendra Sarasvati, "almost all the later Advaitins were influenced by Mandana Misra andBhaskara."[475][note 9] Until the 11th century, Vedanta itself was a peripheral school of thought;[476] Vedanta became a major influence when Vedanta philosophy was utilized by various sects of Hinduism to ground their doctrines,[396] such asRamanuja (11th c.), who alignedbhakti, "the major force in the religions of Hinduism," with philosophical thought, meanwhile rejecting Shankara's views.[web 29]
The cultural influence of Shankara and Advaita Vedanta started only centuries later, in theVijayanagara Empire in the 14th century,[34][477][478] when Sringerimatha started to receive patronage from the kings of the Vijayanagara Empire and became a powerful institution.[479]Vidyaranya, also known as Madhava, who was the Jagadguru of the Śringeri Śarada Pītham from ca. 1374–1380 to 1386[479] played a central role in this growing influence of Advaita Vedanta, and thedeification of Shankara as aruler-renunciate.[34][477][480][481] From 1346 onwards Sringerimatha received patronage from the Vijayanagara kings, and its importance and influence grew rapidly in the second half of the 14th century.[479][note 79] Vidyaranya and the Sringeri matha competed for royal patronage and converts with SrivaisnavaVisistadvaita, which was dominant in territories conquered by the Vijayanagara Empire,[483] and Madhava (the pre-ordination name of Vidyaranya) presented Shankara's teachings as the summit of alldarsanas, portraying the otherdarsanas as partial truths which converged in Shankara's teachings.[346] The subsequentShankara Digvijayam genre, following the example of the earlierMadhva Digvijayam,[484] presented Shankara as aruler-renunciate, conquering the four quarters of India and bringing harmony.[480][481] The genre created legends to turn Shankara into a "divine folk-hero who spread his teaching through hisdigvijaya ("universal conquest") all over India like a victorious conqueror."[346][482]
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."[485] Shankara became "an iconic representation of Hindu religion and culture," despite the fact that most Hindus do not adhere to Advaita Vedanta.[486]
Two defunct schools are thePancapadika andIstasiddhi, which were replaced by Prakasatman's Vivarana school.[187] The still existingBhāmatī andVivarana developed in the 11th-14th century.[web 30][112] These schools worked out the logical implications of various Advaita doctrines. Two of the problems they encountered were the further interpretations of the concepts ofmāyā andavidya.[web 30]
Padmapada (c. 800 CE),[487] the founder of the defunct Pancapadika school, was a direct disciple of Shankara. He wrote thePancapadika, a commentary on theSankara-bhaya.[487] Padmapada diverged from Shankara in his description ofavidya, designatingprakrti asavidya orajnana.[488]
Sureśvara (fl. 800–900 CE)[489] was a contemporary of Shankara,[458] and often (incorrectly) identified with Maṇḍana Miśra.[458][note 80] Sureśvara has also been credited as the founder of a pre-Shankara branch of Advaita Vedānta.[489]
Mandana Mishra's studentVachaspati Miśra (9th/10th century CE),[490][491][492] who is believed to have been an incarnation of Shankara to popularize the Advaita view,[493] wrote theBhamati, a commentary on Shankara'sBrahma Sutra Bhashya, and theBrahmatattva-samiksa, a commentary on Mandana Mishra'sBrahma-siddhi. His thought was mainly inspired by Mandana Miśra, and harmonises Shankara's thought with that of Mandana Miśra.[494][web 30] The Bhamati school takes an ontological approach. It sees theJiva as the source of avidya.[web 30] It sees contemplation as the main factor in the acquirement of liberation, while the study of the Vedas and reflection are additional factors.[495][496]
Vimuktatman (c. 1200 CE)[497] wrote theIsta-siddhi.[497] It is one of the four traditionalsiddhi, together with Mandana'sBrahma-siddhi, Suresvara'sNaiskarmya-siddhi, and Madusudana'sAdvaita-siddhi.[498] According to Vimuktatman, absolute Reality is "pure intuitive consciousness".[499] His school of thought was eventually replaced by Prakasatman's Vivarana school.[187]
Prakasatman (c. 1200–1300)[187] wrote thePancapadika-Vivarana, a commentary on thePancapadika byPadmapadacharya.[187] TheVivarana 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."[187] The Vivarana school takes an epistemological approach. It is distinguished from theBhamati school by its rejection of action and favouring Vedic study and "a direct apprehension of Brahma."[495] Prakasatman was the first to propound the theory ofmulavidya ormaya as being of "positive beginningless nature",[500] 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.[web 30]
Another late figure which is widely associated with Advaita and was influential on late Advaita thought wasŚrīharṣa.
Michael 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 Vedānta in the centuries leading up to the colonial period."[433]
While indologists like Paul Hacker and Wilhelm Halbfass took Shankara's system as the measure for an "orthodox" Advaita Vedānta, the living Advaita Vedānta tradition in medieval times was influenced by, and incorporated elements from, the yogic tradition and texts like theYoga Vasistha and theBhagavata Purana.[44] 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.[478]
TheYoga Vasistha became an authoritative source text in the Advaita vedānta tradition in the 14th century, and the "yogic Advaita"[501][502] of Vidyāraņya'sJivanmuktiviveka (14th century) was influenced by the(Laghu-)Yoga-Vasistha, which in turn was influenced byKashmir Shaivism.[503] Vivekananda's 19th century emphasis onnirvikalpa samadhi was preceded by medieval yogic influences on Advaita Vedānta. In the 16th and 17th centuries, someNath andhatha yoga texts also came within the scope of the developing Advaita Vedānta tradition.[65]
According toAndrew Nicholson, it was with the arrival of Islamic rule, first in the form ofDelhi Sultanate and later theMughal Empire, and the subsequent persecution of Indian religions, that Hindu scholars began a self-conscious attempts to define anidentity and unity.[504][505] Between the twelfth and the fourteenth century, this effort emerged with the "astika and nastika" schema of classifying Indian philosophy.[504]
It is only during this period that the historical fame and cultural influence of Shankara and Advaita Vedanta was established.[34][477][478] Advaita Vedanta's position as most influential Hindudarsana took shape as Advaitins in theVijayanagara Empire competed for patronage from the royal court, and tried to convert others to their sect.[483] Sringerimatha started to receive patronage from the kings of the Vijayanagara Empire[184][34][479][477] who shifted their allegiance fromAdvaiticAgamic Shaivism to Brahmanical Advaita orthodoxy.[506]
Central in this repositioning wasVidyāraṇya,[34][477] also known as Madhava, who was the Jagadguru of theŚringeri Śarada Pītham from 1380 to 1386[507] and a minister in the Vijayanagara Empire.[508] He inspired the re-creation of the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire of South India, in response to the devastation caused by the IslamicDelhi Sultanate,[34][477][478][508] but his efforts were also targeted at Srivaisnava groups, especiallyVisistadvaita, which was dominant in territories conquered by the Vijayanagara Empire.[509] 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.[483] Most of Shankara's biographies were created and published from the 14th to the 17th century, such as the widely citedŚankara-vijaya, in which legends were created to turn Shankara into a "divine folk-hero who spread his teaching through hisdigvijaya ("universal conquest") all over India like a victorious conqueror."[346][482][510]
Vidyaranya and his brothers wrote extensive Advaitic commentaries on the Vedas and Dharma to make "the authoritative literature of the Aryan religion" more accessible.[346] In hisdoxographySarvadarśanasaṅgraha ("Summary of all views") Vidyaranya presented Shankara's teachings as the summit of alldarsanas, presenting the otherdarsanas as partial truths which converged in Shankara's teachings, which was regarded to be the most inclusive system.[511][346] 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.[47]Bhedabheda wasn't mentioned at all, "literally written out of the history of Indian philosophy."[512] Vidyaranya became head of Sringerimatha, proclaiming that it was established by Shankara himself.[346][482] Vidyaranya enjoyed royal support,[508] and his sponsorship and methodical efforts helped establish Shankara as a rallying symbol of values, spread historical and cultural influence of Shankara's Vedānta philosophies, and establish monasteries (mathas) to expand the cultural influence of Shankara and Advaita Vedānta.[34]
Michael S. Allen has written on the influence and popularity of Advaita Vedanta in early modern north India, especially on the work of the AdvaitaDādū-panthī monkNiścaldās (ca. 1791–1863), author ofThe Ocean of Inquiry (Hindi: Vichāra-sāgara), a vernacular compendium of Advaita.[25] According to Allen, the work of Niścaldās "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.'"[25]
Allen highlights the widespread prominence in early modern India of what he calls "Greater Advaita Vedānta" which refers to popular Advaita works, including "narratives and dramas, “eclectic” works blending Vedānta with other traditions, and vernacular works such asThe Ocean of Inquiry."[25] Allen refers to several popular late figures and texts which draw on Advaita Vedanta, such as the Maharashtrian santEknāth (16th c.), the popularAdhyātma-rāmāyaṇa (ca. late 15th c.), which synthesizes Rama bhakti and advaita metaphysics and theTripurā-rahasya (a tantric text that adopts an advaita metaphysics).[25] Other important vernacular Advaita figures include the Hindu authors Manohardās and Māṇakdās (who wrote the Ātma-bodh). Advaita literature was also written in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi, Bengali, and Oriya.[25]
According to King, with the consolidation of the British imperialist rule the new rulers started to view Indians through the "colonially crafted lenses" ofOrientalism. In response Hindu nationalism emerged, striving for socio-political independence and countering the influence of Christian missionaries.[515] Among the colonial era intelligentsia the monistic Advaita Vedānta has been a major ideological force for Hindu nationalism,[516] with Hindu intellectuals formulating a "humanistic, inclusivist" response, now called Neo-Vedānta, attempting to respond to this colonial stereotyping of "Indian culture [as] backward, superstitious and inferior to the West."[517]
Due to the influence of Vidyaranya'sSarvadarśanasaṅgraha, early Indologists regarded Advaita Vedanta as the most accurate interpretation of the Upanishads.[47] Vedānta came to be regarded, both by westerners as by Indian nationalists, as the essence of Hinduism, and Advaita Vedānta came to be regarded as "then paradigmatic example of the mystical nature of the Hindu religion" and umbrella of "inclusivism".[518] Colonial era Indian thinkers, such asVivekananda, presented Advaita Vedānta 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 theMuslim League, to Christianity-infused colonial orientalism and to religious persecution of those belonging to Indian religions.[519][505][520] Neo-Vedānta subsumed and incorporated Buddhist ideas thereby making theBuddha a part of the Vedānta tradition, all in an attempt to reposition the history of Indian culture.[431] This view on Advaita Vedānta, according to King, "provided an opportunity for the construction of a nationalist ideology that could unite Hindus in their struggle against colonial oppression".[521]
Vivekananda discerned auniversal religion, regarding all the apparent differences between various traditions as various manifestations of one truth.[522] Vivekananda emphasisednirvikalpasamadhi as the spiritual goal of Vedānta, he equated it to the liberation inYoga and encouraged Yoga practice which he calledRaja yoga.[523][note 81] With the efforts ofVivekananda, modern formulations of Advaita Vedānta have "become a dominant force in Indian intellectual thought", though Hindu beliefs and practices are diverse.[432]
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, first a professor at Oxford University and later a President of India, further popularized Advaita Vedānta, presenting it as the essence of Hinduism.[web 31] According to Michael Hawley, Radhakrishnan saw other religions, as well as "what Radhakrishnan understands as lower forms of Hinduism," as interpretations of Advaita Vedānta, thereby "in a sense Hindusizing all religions".[web 31] Radhakrishnan metaphysics was grounded in Advaita Vedānta, but he reinterpreted Advaita Vedānta for contemporary needs and context.[web 31][note 82]
Mahatma Gandhi declared his allegiance to Advaita Vedānta, and was another popularizing force for its ideas.[526]
Advaita Vedānta has gained attention in westernspirituality andNew Age asnondualism, wherevarious traditions are seen as driven by the same non-dual experience.[8] Nonduality points to "a primordial, natural awareness without subject or object".[web 34] 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 35]
Shankara,Upadesasahasri I.18.3: "I am ever-free, the existent" (Sat). I.18.6: "The two [contradictory] notions "I am the Existent-Brahman" and "I act," haveAtman as their witness. It is considered more reasonable to give up only [that one] of the two [notions] which arises from ignorance. I.18.7: "The notion, "I am the Existent," arises from right means of knowledge [while] the other notion has its origin in fallacious means of knowledge." (Mayeda 1992, p. 172)
Brahmajnanavalimala Verse 20: "Brahman is real, the universe is mithya (it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal). The jiva is Brahman itself and not different." Translation by S. N. Sastri[1]
Sivananda 1993, p. 219: "Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or individual soul is non-different from Brahman."
Menon 2012: "The experiencing self (jīva) and the transcendental self of the Universe (ātman) are in reality identical (both are Brahman), though the individual self seems different as space within a container seems different from space as such. These cardinal doctrines are represented in the anonymous verse "brahma satyam jagan mithya; jīvo brahmaiva na aparah" (Brahman is alone True, and this world of plurality is an error; the individual self is not different from Brahman)."
Deutsch 1973, p. 54: "[the] essential status [of the individual human person] is that of unqualified reality, of identity with the Absolute [...] the self (jiva) is only misperceived: the self is really Brahman."
Koller 2013, pp. 100–101: "Atman, which is identical to Brahman, is ultimately the only reality and [...] the appearance of plurality is entirely the work of ignorance [...] the self is ultimately of the nature of Atman/Brahman [...] Brahman alone is ultimately real."
Bowker 2000a, "Advaita Vedanta": "There is only Brahman, which is necessarily undifferentiated. It follows that there cannot even be a difference, or duality, between the human subject, or self, and Brahman, for Brahman must be that very self (since Brahman is the reality underlying all appearance). The goal of human life and wisdom must, therefore, be the realization that the self (ātman) is Brahman."
Hacker (1995, p. 88) notes that Shankara uses two groups of words to denote 'atman': "One group - principallyjiva,vijnanatman, andsarira - expresses the illusory aspect of the soul [...] But in addition there are the two expressionsatman andpratyagatman. These also designate the individual soul, but in its real aspect."Mayeda (1992, pp. 11, 14) uses the wordpratyagatman;Sivananda1993, p. 219),Deutsch (1973, p. 54), andMenon (2012) use the termjiva when referring to the identity ofatman andBrahman.
Malkovsky 2000, p. 71: "The interpretation of advaita that is the most common equates non-duality with monism and acosmic illusionism. Only the Absolute, or the paraa brahma, is said to exist; everything else is but an illusory appearance."
Menon 2012: "The essential philosophy of Advaita is an idealist monism, and is considered to be presented first in the Upaniṣads and consolidated in the Brahma Sūtra by this tradition."
King 1995, p. 65: "The prevailing monism of the Upanishads was developed by the Advaita Vedanta to its ultimate extreme."
Mohanty 1980, p. 205: "Nyaya-Vaiseshika is realistic; Advaita Vedanta is idealistic. The former is pluralistic, the latter monistic."
Deutsch 1988, p. 4: "Advaita Vedanta is more than a philosophical system, as we understand these terms in the West today; it is also a practical guide to spiritual experience and is intimately bound up with spiritual experience."
Puligandla 1997, p. 11: "Any philosophy worthy of its title should not be a mere intellectual exercise but should have practical application in enabling man to live an enlightened life. A philosophy which makes no difference to the quality and style of our life is no philosophy, but an empty intellectual construction."
^According to Shankara, inAdhyasa-bhasya (pre-amble toBrahma Sutra Bhashya I.1.1), it is self-evident thatĀtman, pure awareness or thewitness-consciousness, is completely different from non-Atman, the thinking and acting self and the material world.
svayam: "himself, autonomous, in person" (Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit,svayamArchived 7 December 2021 at theWayback Machine)
prakāśa: "manifestation," literally "light" or "illumination"; "the capacity to disclose, present, or make manifest" (Fasching 2021 note 1, referring to "MacKenzie 2017, 335; cf. also Ram-Prasad 2007, 53")
Menezes 2017, p. 198: "Self-luminosity (svayam prakāśa) means self is pure awareness by nature"; idemGaneri 2019: "self is pure awareness by nature."
Murti 1983, p. 339: "a foundational consciousness [...] to which everything is presented, but is itself no presentation, that which knows all, but is itself no object."
Shankara, Upadeśasāhasrī I.1.1, translated inMayeda 1992, p. 103: "Salutation to the all-knowing Pure Consciousness [note 1] which pervades all, is all, abides in the hearts of all beings, and is beyond all objects [of knowledge]. [Note 1 by Mayeda: "The Sanskrit term caitanya translated here as "Pure Consciousness" is used as a synonym for Brahman-Atman, indicating the nature of It."]
Shankara, Upadeśasāhasrī I.11.7, translated inMayeda 1992, p. 126: "Being different from name, form, and action and by nature constantly free, I amAtman, ie. the highestBrahman; I am Pure Consciousness only and always non-dual."
Deutsch 1973, p. 48: "Atman (orparamatman, the highest Self), for Advaita vedanta, is that pure, undifferentiated, self-shining consciousness, timeless, spaceless, and unthinkable, that is non-different from Brahman and that underlies and supports the individual human person."
Menon 2012: "For classical Advaita Vedānta, Brahman is the fundamental reality underlying all objects and experiences. Brahman is explained aspure existence, pure consciousness and pure bliss. All forms of existence presuppose a knowing self. Brahman or pure consciousness underlies the knowing self. Consciousness according to the Advaita School, unlike the positions held by other Vedānta schools, is not a property of Brahman but its very nature. Brahman is also one without a second, all-pervading and the immediate awareness."
Fasching 2021: "According to Advaita Vedānta, the absolute is pure, qualityless and unchanging consciousness. Our consciousness (the consciousness of individual conscious entities) is not distinct from it, but is nothing other than this absolute itself, (seemingly) modified by the mental states of respective individual minds."
Sinha 2016, p. 42: "According to the Advaita Vedānta, the Atman is pure, eternal, undifferenced consciousness, while the jīva is the pure consciousness limited or determined by the internal organ (antahkarana)."
^abcdeKing 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." Critical scholarship has identified a number of key concepts used in contemporary Advaita Vedānta which differ from Shankara's views, revealing a discrepancy between the nominal adherence to Shankara and the actual alliance with his views.(Suthren Hirst 2005, p. 4,Potter 2006, pp. 6–7) Some modern Advaitins, specificallySatchidanandendra Sarasvati, argue that most of post-Shankara Advaita Vedanta actually deviates from Shankara, an argument deemed correct by Potter.(Potter 2006, pp. 6–7,Roodurmun 2002, pp. 33–34) Potter (2006, pp. 6–7): "...these modern interpreters are implying that most Advaitins after Samkara's time are confused and basically mistaken, and that 99% of the extant classical interpretive literature on Samkara's philosophy is off the mark. This is clearly a remarkably radical conclusion. Yet, there is good reason to think that it may well be true." Satchidanandendra Sarasvati 1997, p. 6: "almost all the later Advaitins were influenced by Mandana Misra andBhaskara."
^abCompare, in Buddhism:Subitism,Hongaku ("original enlightenment"),Post-satori practice. See also Nisargadatta Maharaj on 'the bird's way and the ant's way'.
^Sringeri matha received patronage from the kings of theVijayanagara Empire,(Goodding 2013, p. 89) competing with SrivaisnavaVisistadvaita groups for royal patronage and converts.(Stoker 2016, pp. 55–56) The works of the influential AdvaitinVidyaranya (Madhava, 14th cent.),jagadguru of Sringerimatha from ca. 1374–1380 to 1386, presented Advaita teachings as the summit of the Indiandarśanam,(Hacker 1995, pp. 29–30,Blake Michael 1992, pp. 60–62 with notes 6, 7, and 8,King 2002, p. 128,Roodurmun 2002, pp. 33–34) while the subsequentShankara Digvijayam genredeified him as aruler-renunciate who conquered the four quarters.(Nowicka 2016, p. 147,Bader 2001, p. vii) Shankara's prominence was further established in the 19th and 20th century, gaining worldwide fame, in a "confluence of interests" of Western Christian missionaries, theBritish Raj, andIndian nationalists.(King 2002, pp. 129–135)
^According to Anantanand Rambachan, advaita describes the relation between Brahman, the origin of everything, and the world and the individual self. This relation is neither one nor two. It is not "one," because "[t]he world, as an effect, originates from Brahman and is dependent on Brahman for its existence." But it is also not "two," because Brahman is "the ultimate ontological ground of the world and the self."[60]
An ocean, a single seerwithout duality becomes he whose world is Brahman, O King, Yajnavalkya instructed This is his supreme way. This is his supreme achievement.
A reference to Non-duality is also made in theChandogya Upanishad, within a dialogue between the Vedic sageUddalaka Aruni and his son Svetaketu, as follows :
Somya, before this world was manifest, there was only existence, onewithout 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.
^Many of these traditions, which were influential among Neo-Vedantins, did not derive from Vedantic lineages, i.e., the "Advaita Vedanta" ofShankara. AsMadaio (2017, p. 4) points out "...it is possible to speak of sanskritic and vernacular advaitic texts (which are either explicitly non-dualistic or permit a non-dualistic reading) and 'Advaita Vedanta' texts which originate within sampradayas that claim an Advaita Vedantic lineage. This, then, avoids the obfuscating tendency to subsume advaitic but non-vedantic works under a 'Vedanta' or 'Advaita Vedanta' umbrella."
^King 1995, p. 65: "The prevailing monism of the Upanishads was developed by the Advaita Vedanta to its ultimate extreme."
^The suffering created by the workings of the mind entangled with physical reality
^Jivanmukti is a state that transforms the nature, attributes and behaviors of an individual.After this transformation, the liberated individual shows attributes such as:(Aiyar 1914, pp. 140–147);(Nikhilananda 1958, pp. 53–79); (Fort 1998)
he is not bothered by disrespect and endures cruel words, treats others with respect regardless of how others treat him;
when confronted by an angry person he does not return anger, instead replies with soft and kind words;
even if tortured, he speaks and trusts the truth;
he does not crave for blessings or expect praise from others;
he never injures or harms any life or being (ahimsa), he is intent in the welfare of all beings;
he is as comfortable being alone as in the presence of others;
he is as comfortable with a bowl, at the foot of a tree in tattered robe without help, as when he is in a mithuna (union of mendicants), grama (village) and nagara (city);
he does not care about or wear sikha (tuft of hair on the back of head for religious reasons), nor the holy thread across his body. To him, knowledge is sikha, knowledge is the holy thread, knowledge alone is supreme. Outer appearances and rituals do not matter to him, only knowledge matters;
for him there is no invocation nor dismissal of deities, no mantra nor non-mantra, no prostrations nor worship of gods, goddess or ancestors, nothing other than knowledge of Self;
he is humble, high spirited, of clear and steady mind, straightforward, compassionate, patient, indifferent, courageous, speaks firmly and with sweet words.
^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.[77]
^Fowler 2002, pp. 30–31, 260–264: "As a philosophical and metaphysical term it [monism] refers to the acceptance of one single, ultimate, principle as the basis of the cosmos, the unity and oneness of all reality (...) [monism] has a model par excellence in that put forward by the eighth-century Indian philosopher Shankara, who is associated with the school of thought of Advaita Vedanta. (p. 263) – "In Shankara's words: 'the notions oneself and one's own are indeed falsely constructed (upon Atman) through nescience. When there is (the knowledge of) the oneness of Atman, these notions certainly do not exist. If the seed does not exist, whence shall the fruit arise?".
^See also kelamuni (2006),The Philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya, section "II. The Threefold Means," on Brahma Sutra Bhashya 4.1.2 and subitism.
^These characteristics and steps are described in various Advaita texts, such as by Shankara in Chapter 1.1 ofBrahmasutrabhasya,[84] and in the Bhagavad Gita Chapter 10
^Example self-restraints mentioned in Hindu texts: one must refrain from any violence that causes injury to others, refrain from starting or propagating deceit and falsehood, refrain from theft of others' property, refrain from sexually cheating on one's partner, and refrain from avarice.[101][102][103]
^See also kelamuni (2006),The Philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya, section "II. The Threefold Means," on Brahma Sutra Bhashya 4.1.2 and subitism.
^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.[118][119] 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.[120][121]
^Sharma 2000, p. 177 refers toBrahma 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 possessingbrahman-knowledge, even though bearing a body?
^1. Something is. 2. It is not. 3. It both is and is not. 4. It neither is nor is not.[146]
^While the Vedanta tradition equatessat ("the Existent") with Brahman, the Chandogya Upanishad itself does not refer to Brahman.[19][155]Deutsch & Dalvi (2004, p. 8): "Although the text does not use the termbrahman, the Vedanta tradition is that the Existent (sat) referred to is no other than Brahman."
^Shankara, himself, had renounced all religious ritual acts;[191] For an example of Shankara's reasoning "why rites and ritual actions should be given up",[192] Elsewhere, Shankara'sBhasya on various Upanishads repeat "give up rituals and rites".[193]
^CompareMookerji 2011 onSvādhyāya (Vedic learning).Mookerji (2011, pp. 29–31) notes that the Rigveda, and Sayana's commentary, contain passages criticizing as fruitless mere recitation of theŖik (words) without understanding their inner meaning or essence, the knowledge ofdharma andParabrahman.Mookerji (2011, pp. 29, 34) concludes that in the Rigvedic education of the mantras "the contemplation and comprehension oftheir meaning was considered as more important and vital to education than their mere mechanical repetition and correct pronunciation."Mookerji (2011, p. 35) refers to Sayana as stating that "the mastery of texts,akshara-praptī, is followed byartha-bodha, perception of their meaning." (Artha may also mean "goal, purpose or essence," depending on the context.[194][web 10]) According toMookerji (2011, p. 36), "the realization ofTruth" and the knowledge ofparamatman as revealed to therishis is the real aim of Vedic learning, and not the mere recitation of texts.
^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 seesAtman there in oneself]" (Bhr. Up. IV, 4, 23)."[202]
^It is not a philosophy in the western meaning of the word, according to Milne.[215]
^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. TheSruti, it believes is a collection of experience and meditative insights about liberating knowledge,[227]
^Sharma 1993, pp. 72–83: "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"
^Timalsina 2008, p. xvii: "Advaita can be approached from various angles. Not only are there multiple interpretations of Advaita, there are different starting points from which one can arrive at the conclusion of non-duality".
^Atman, Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press (2012),Quote: "1. real self of the individual; 2. a person's soul"
^abPayne 2005, pp. 199–200 with p. 215 notes 5, 6: "A fourth metaphor is the monistic equation of the true or absolute self (atman) with absolute being (Brahman). In general, then, the conception of the self that emerges is one in which the self is in some way permanent, eternal, absolute or unchanging. It is also simultaneously universal and individual. The view is that there is an essence and that it can be known."
Atman, Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press (2012),Quote: "1. real self of the individual; 2. a person's soul"
David Lorenzen (2004), The Hindu World (Editors: Sushil Mittal and Gene Thursby), Routledge,ISBN0-415215277, pp. 208–209,Quote: "Advaita and nirguni movements, on the other hand, stress an interior mysticism in which the devotee seeks to discover the identity of individual soul (atman) with the universal ground of being (brahman) or to find god within himself";
Richard King (1995), Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0791425138, p. 64,Quote: "Atman as the innermost essence or soul of man, and Brahman as the innermost essence and support of the universe. (...) Thus we can see in the Upanishads, a tendency towards a convergence of microcosm and macrocosm, culminating in the equating of atman with Brahman".
Chad Meister (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0195340136, p. 63;Quote: "Even though Buddhism explicitly rejected the Hindu ideas ofAtman (soul) and Brahman, Hinduism treats Sakyamuni Buddha as one of the ten avatars of Vishnu."
^CompareFasching 2021: For Advaita Vedānta, 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, prakāśa (manifestation); in itself it is devoid of any content or structure and can never become an object.
Bowker 2003, "Brahman": "(Skt., literally, 'growth' or 'expansion'). The one supreme, all pervading Spirit that is the origin and support of thephenomenal universe."
Puligandla 1997, p. 222 The supreme self. Puligandla states it as "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world."
The Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable. Brahman is indescribable.Fowler 2005, p. 30: "Upanisadic thought is anything but consistent; nevertheless, there is a common focus on the acceptance of a totally transcendent Absolute, a trend which arose in theVedic period. This indescribable Absolute is called Brahman [...]."
^It provides the "stuff" from which everything is made
^Gambhirananda: "That (is Brahman) from which (are derived) the birth etc. of this (universe)."[283]
^Svarupalakshana, qualities, definition based on essence
^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).[286]
^These concepts are discussed in ancient and medieval texts ofHinduism, and other Indian religions, using synonymous terms. Cause is referred to askāraṇa (कारण),nidana (निदान),hetu (हेतु) ormulam (मूलम्), while effect is referred to askārya (कार्य),phala (फल),parinam (परिणाम) orShungam (शुङ्ग).[web 17][309]
^Advaita furthermore states that effect (kārya) is non-different from cause (kāraṇa), but the cause is different from the effect. This principle is calledkārya-kāraṇa 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 theBrahmasūtra-Bhāṣya 2.1.9, Adi Shankara describes this as follows:
ananyatve'pi kāryakāraṇayoḥ kāryasya kāraṇātmatvaṃ na tu kāraṇasya kāryātmatvaṃ 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 19]
^According to Eliot Deutsch, Advaita Vedānta states that from "the standpoint of Brahman-experience and Brahman itself, there isno 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.[311]
^According to Hugh Nicholson, "the definitive study on the development of the concept ofvivarta in Indian philosophy, and in Advaita Vedanta in particular, remains Hacker'sVivarta.[313] According to Hacker, "the wordmaya has for [Shankara] hardly any terminological weight."[314]
^Compare the misunderstanding ofYogacharas concept ofvijñapti-mātra, 'representation-only', as 'consciousness-only'.
^Śaṅkarācārya 1949, p. 32; Sanskrit: तच् चैतत् परमार्थदर्शनं प्रतिपत्तुमिच्छता वर्णाश्रमाद्यभिमान-कृतपाञ्क्तरूपपुत्रवित्तलोकैषणादिभ्यो व्युत्थानं कर्तव्यम् । सम्यक्प्रत्ययविरोधात् तदभिमानस्य भेददर्शनप्रतिषेधार्थोपपत्तिश्चोपपद्यते । न ह्येकस्मिन्नात्मन्यसंसारित्वबुद्धौ शास्त्रन्यायोत्पादितायां तद्विपरीता बुद्धिर्भवति । न ह्य् अग्नौ शितत्वबुद्धिः, शरीरे वाजरामरणबुद्धिः । तस्मादविद्याकार्यत्वात् सर्वकर्मणां तत्साधनानां च यज्ञोपवीतादीनां परमार्थदर्शनिष्टेन त्यागः कर्तव्यः ॥ ४४॥
^Many in number, theUpanishads developed in different schools at various times and places, some in the Vedic period and others in the medieval or modern era (the names of up to 112Upanishads have been recorded).[327] All major commentators have considered the twelve to thirteen oldest of these texts as the principalUpanishads and as the foundation of Vedanta.
^The Śruti includes the four Vedas including its four layers of embedded texts – theSamhitas, theBrahmanas, theAranyakas, and the earlyUpanishads.[328]
^Sanskrit:श्री संस्थान गौडपदाचार्य मठ,Śrī Sansthāna Gauḍapadācārya Maṭha
^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".[347]
^According to Pandey, these Mathas were not established by Shankara himself, but were originally ashrams established byVibhāņdaka and his sonŖșyaśŗnga.[348] Shankara inherited the ashrams at Dvārakā and Sringeri, and shifted the ashram at Śŗngaverapura to Badarikāśrama, and the ashram at Angadeśa to Jagannātha Purī.[349]
^Sanskrit.org: "Advaitins are non-sectarian, and they advocate worship of Siva and Visnu equally with that of the other deities of Hinduism, like Sakti, Ganapati and others."[web 22]
^Archeological evidence suggest that the Smarta tradition in India dates back to at least 3rd-century CE.[351][352]
^Practically, Shankara fostered a rapprochement between Advaita andsmarta orthodoxy, which by his time had not only continued to defend thevarnasramadharma theory as defining the path ofkarman, but had developed the practice ofpancayatanapuja ("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'sistadevata ("deity of choice").[358]
^Kalupahana describes how in Buddhism there is also a current which favours substance ontology. Kalupahanan seesMādhyamaka andYogācāra as reactions against developments toward substance ontology in Buddhism.[390]
^Scholars are divided on the historical influence of Advaita Vedānta. Some Indologists state that it is one of the most studied Hindu philosophy and the most influential schools of classical Indian thought:
Brannigan 2009, p. 19: "Advaita Vedanta is the most influential philosophical system in Hindu thought."
Deutsch 1969, p. 3: "[Advaita Vedānta] has been and continues to be the most widely accepted system of thought among philosophers in India, and it is, we believe, one of the greatest philosophical achievements to be found in the East or the West."
^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.[429][note 70] 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."[430]
^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.[436]
^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."[438]
^Nakamura notes that there are contradictions in doctrine between the four chapters.[449]
^It is often used interchangeably with the termcitta-mātra, but they have different meanings. The standard translation of both terms is "consciousness-only" or "mind-only." Several modern researchers object this translation, and the accompanying label of "absolute idealism" or "idealistic monism".[453] A better translation forvijñapti-mātra isrepresentation-only.[454]
^1. Something is. 2. It is not. 3. It both is and is not. 4. It neither is nor is not.[146][page needed] The 'four-cornered negation' is an English gloss of the Sanskrit,Chatushkoti.[citation needed]
^The influence ofMahayana Buddhism on other religions and philosophies was not limited to Vedanta. Kalupahana notes that theVisuddhimagga – a Theravada Buddhist tradition, contains "some metaphysical speculations, such as those of the Sarvastivadins, the Sautrantikas, and even theYogacarins".[456]
^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."[35]
^The insignificance of Srinerimatha before this time was such, that Hacker and Kulke & Rothermund have argued that Sringerimatha may have been founded by Vidyaranya himself, proclaiming that it was established by Shankara himself.[346][482]
^Potter 2008, pp. 346–347, 420–423: "There is little firm historical information about Suresvara; tradition holds Suresvara is same as Mandanamisra."
^According to Comans, this approach is missing in historic Advaita texts.[524]
^Neo-Vedanta seems to be closer toBhedabheda-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 hisThe 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."[525]
^Presently Cohen has distanced himself from Poonja, and calls his teachings "Evolutionary Enlightenment".[530]What Is Enlightenment, the magazine published by Choen's organisation, has been critical of neo-Advaita several times, as early as 2001. See.[web 36][web 37][web 38]
^Bauer, Nancy F. (1987). "Advaita Vedanta and Contemporary Western Ethics".Philosophy East and West.37 (1). University of Hawaii Press:36–50.doi:10.2307/1399082.JSTOR1399082.
^John Clayton (2010), Religions, Reasons and Gods: Essays in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Religion, Cambridge University Press,ISBN978-0521126274, p. 54
^Alex Wayman (1999), A Millennium of Buddhist Logic, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120816466, pp. xix–xx
^abcdSiderits, Mark (Spring 2015)."Buddha: Non-Self". InZalta, Edward N. (ed.).Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab,Center for the Study of Language and Information,Stanford University.ISSN1095-5054.OCLC643092515.Archived from the original on 27 April 2023. Retrieved24 June 2023.TheBuddha's "middle path" strategy can be seen as one of first arguing that there is nothing that the word "I" genuinely denotes, and then explaining that our erroneous sense of an "I" stems from our employment of the useful fiction represented by the concept of the person. While the second part of this strategy only receives its full articulation in the later development of thetheory of two truths, the first part can be found in the Buddha's own teachings, in the form of severalphilosophical arguments for non-self. Best known among these is theargument from impermanence (S III.66–8) [...]. It is the fact that this argument does not contain a premise explicitly asserting that thefiveskandhas (classes of psychophysical element) are exhaustive of the constituents of persons, plus the fact that these are all said to be empirically observable, that leads some to claim that the Buddha did not intend to deny the existence of a selftout court. There is, however, evidence that the Buddha was generally hostile toward attempts to establish the existence of unobservable entities. In thePoṭṭhapāda Sutta (D I.178–203), for instance, the Buddha compares someone who posits an unseen seer in order to explain our introspective awareness of cognitions, to a man who has conceived a longing for the most beautiful woman in the world based solely on the thought that such a woman must surely exist. And in theTevijja Sutta (D I.235–52), the Buddha rejects the claim of certainBrahmins to know the path to oneness withBrahman, on the grounds that no one has actually observed this Brahman. This makes more plausible the assumption that the argument has as an implicit premise the claim that there is no more to the person than the fiveskandhas.
^Julius Lipner (1986), The Face of Truth: A Study of Meaning and Metaphysics in the Vedantic Theology of Rāmānuja, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0887060397, pp. 120–123
^abTapasyananda, Swami.Bhakti Schools of Vedanta pg. 180-181
^abStoker, Valerie (2011)."Madhva (1238–1317)".Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Archived from the original on 12 October 2016. Retrieved2 February 2016.
^abStafford Betty (2010), Dvaita, Advaita, and Viśiṣṭādvaita: Contrasting Views of Mokṣa, Asian Philosophy: An International Journal of the Philosophical Traditions of the East, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp. 215–224
^abSMS Chari (1999), Advaita and Visistadvaita, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120815353, pp. 5–7
^abJohn Koller (2007), in Chad Meister and Paul Copan (Editors):The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, Routledge,ISBN978-1-134-18001-1, pp. 98–106
^Wilhelm Halbfass (1990),Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0-7914-0362-4, pp. 205–208
^Adi Shankaracharya,Vivekacūḍāmaṇi S Madhavananda (Translator), Advaita Ashrama (1921)
^John Grimes (2004),The Vivekacudamani of Sankaracarya Bhagavatpada: An Introduction and Translation, Ashgate,ISBN978-0-7546-3395-2, p.23
^abGaborieau, Marc (June 1985). "From Al-Beruni to Jinnah: Idiom, Ritual and Ideology of the Hindu-Muslim Confrontation in South Asia".Anthropology Today.1 (3). Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland:7–14.doi:10.2307/3033123.JSTOR3033123.
^Comans, Michael (1993). "The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta".Philosophy East and West.43 (1). University of Hawai'i Press:19–38.doi:10.2307/1399467.JSTOR1399467.S2CID170870115.
Arapura, John (1986).Hermeneutical Essays on Vedāntic Topics. Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-8120801837.
Bādarāyaṇa (1936).Brahmasutra-bhasya 1.1.4(PDF). Translated by S. Vireswarananda.Archived(PDF) from the original on 29 September 2021. Retrieved30 December 2021.
Bader, Jonathan (2001),Conquest of the Four Quarters. TYraditional Accounts of the Life of Shankara, Australian National University
Baird, Robert D. (1986), "Swami Bhativedanta and the Bhagavd Gita As It Is", in Minor, Robert Neil (ed.),Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavad Gita, SUNY Press
Balasubramanian, R. (2000). "Introduction". In Chattopadhyana (ed.).History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization. Volume II Part 2: Advaita Vedanta. Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations.
Barua, Ankur (2015), "Ideas of Liberation in Medieval Advaita Vedānta",Religion Compass,9 (8):262–271,doi:10.1111/rec3.12160
Belling, Noa (2006).Yoga for ideal weight and shape. Sydney, Australia: New Holland Publishers (Australia) P/L.ISBN978-1-74110-298-7.
Bhatawadekar, Sai (2013), "The Tvat Tam Asi Formula and Schopenhauer's "Deductive Leap"", in Fuechtner, Veronika; Rhiel, Mary (eds.),Imagining Germany Imagining Asia: Essays in Asian-German Studies, Boydell & Brewer
Blake Michael, R. (1992),The Origins of Vīraśaiva Sects, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-81-208-0776-1
Bowker, John (2000a),"Advaita Vedanta",The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0-19-280094-7,archived from the original on 5 January 2022, retrieved1 August 2020
Bowker, John (2000b),"Anubhava",The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0-19-280094-7,archived from the original on 2 January 2022, retrieved12 January 2022
Bowker, John (2000c), "Atman",The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0-19-280094-7
Bowker, John (2003),"Brahman",The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0-19-280094-7,archived from the original on 4 January 2022, retrieved13 December 2015
Brannigan, Michael (2009),Striking a Balance: A Primer in Traditional Asian Values, Rowman & Littlefield, Rowman & Littlefield,ISBN978-0739138465
Braue, Donald A. (1984),Māyā in Radhakrishnanʾs Thought: Six Meanings Other Than Illusion, Motilall Banarsidass
Brereton, Joel P. (1986), ""Tat Tvam Ast" in Context",Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft,136 (1):98–109
Brodd, Jeffrey (2003).World Religions. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press.ISBN978-0-88489-725-5.
Brodd, Jeffrey (2009),World Religions: A Voyage of Discovery, Saint Mary's Press,ISBN978-0884899976
Brown, C. Mackenzie (1983). "The Origin and Transmission of the Two "Bhāgavata Purāṇas": A Canonical and Theological Dilemma".Journal of the American Academy of Religion.51 (4). Oxford University Press:551–567.doi:10.1093/jaarel/li.4.551.JSTOR1462581.
Caplan, Mariana (2009),Eyes Wide Open: Cultivating Discernment on the Spiritual Path, Sounds True
Cenkner, William (1995),A Tradition of Teachers: Śaṅkara and the Jagadgurus Today, Motilall Banarsidas
Chatterjea, Tara (2003),Knowledge and Freedom in Indian Philosophy, Lexington Books
Clark, Matthew (2006),The Daśanāmī-Saṃnyāsīs: The Integration of Ascetic Lineages into an Order, BRILL
Coburn, Thomas B. (1984). "'Scripture' in India: Towards a Typology of the Word in Hindu Life".Journal of the American Academy of Religion.52 (3):435–459.doi:10.1093/jaarel/52.3.435.
Comans, Michael (2000),The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Dalal, Neil (2009). "Contemplative Practice and Textual Agency in Advaita Vedanta".Method and Theory in the Study of Religion.21:15–27.doi:10.1163/157006809X416788.
Dalal, Neil (2014). "Contemplative Grammars: Śaṅkara's Distinction of Upāsana and Nididhyāsana".Journal of Indian Philosophy.44:179–206.doi:10.1007/s10781-014-9258-z.S2CID170638191.
Dalal, R. (2011).The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths. Penguin.ISBN978-0143415176.
Dandekar, R.N. (2005), "Vedanta", in Jones, Lindsay (ed.),MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religion, MacMillan
Dasgupta, Surendranath (1955),A history of Indian philosophy. 5. Southern schools of ́Saivism, Volume 5, CUP Archive
Dasgupta, Surendranath (1975),A history of Indian philosophy. Volume 2, Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
Dasgupta, S.N. (1997).History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 1.
Datta, D.M. (1992) [1932],The Six Ways of Knowing: A Critical study of the Advaita theory of knowledge, University of Calcutta, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, pp. 221–253,ISBN978-8120835269
Davis, Leesa S. (2010),Advaita Vedānta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry, Continuum International Publishing Group
Davis, Richard (2014),Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshipping Siva in Medieval India, Princeton University Press,ISBN978-0691603087
Dense, Christian D. Von (1999),Philosophers and Religious Leaders, Greenwood Publishing Group
Deutsch, Eliott (2000), "Karma as a "Convenient Fiction" in the Advaita Vedanta", in Perrett, Roy (ed.),Indian Philosophy Vol. 4: Philosophy of Religion, Routledge,ISBN978-0815336112
Deutsch, Eliott (2013), "Karma as a "Convenient Fiction" in the Advaita Vedanta", in Perrett, Roy (ed.),Indian Philosophy Vol. 4: Philosophy of Religion, Routledge
Dhavamony, Mariasusai (2002).Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Theological Soundings and Perspectives. Rodopi Press.ISBN978-9042015104.
Doherty, Martha (2005), "A Contemporary Debate Among Advaita Vedantins on the Nature of Avidya",Journal of Indian Philosophy,33 (2):209–241,doi:10.1007/s10781-004-2599-2,S2CID143714018
Dubois, Joel Andre-Michel (2013),The Hidden Lives of Brahman, SUNY
Dyczkowski, Mark (1989),The Canon of the Śaivāgama, Motilal Banarsidass Pvt. Ltd.,ISBN978-8120805958
Fasching, Wolfgang (2011), "'I Am of the Nature of Seeing': Phenomenological Reflections on the Indian Notion of Witness-Consciousness", in Siderits, M.; Thompson, E.; Zahavi, D. (eds.),Self, No Self? Perspectives from Analytical, Phenomenological, and Indian Traditions, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Fasching, Wolfgang (2021), "Prakāśa. A few reflections on the Advaitic understanding of consciousness as presence and its relevance for philosophy of mind",Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences,20 (4), Springer:679–701,doi:10.1007/s11097-020-09690-2,S2CID225385862
Fiordalis, David Vincent (2021), "One or None? Truth and Self-Transformation for Śaṅkara and Kamalaśīla",Religions,12 (12): 1043,doi:10.3390/rel12121043
Flood, Gavin; Olivelle, Patrick (2003).The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Blackwell.
Fort, Andrew (1996), "Liberation While Living in theJivanmuktiviveka: Vidrayana's "Yogic Advaita", in Fort, Andrew O.; Mumme, Patricia Y. (eds.),Living Liberation in Hindu Thought, SUNY
Fort, Andrew (1998),Jivanmukti in Transformation: Embodied Liberation in Advaita and Neo-Vedanta, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0791439043
Fost, Frederic F. (1998). "Playful Illusion: The Making of Worlds in Advaita Vedanta".Philosophy East and West.48 (3). University of Hawai'i Press:387–405.doi:10.2307/1400333.JSTOR1400333.
Fowler, Jeaneane D. (2002),Perspectives of Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Hinduism, Sussex Academic Press,ISBN978-1898723936
Fowler, Merv (2005),Zen Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices, Sussex Academic Press
Gambhirananda, Swami (2021) [1965],Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sankaracarya, Advaita Ashrama Publication Department
Gleig, Ann Louise (2011),Enlightenment After the Enlightenment: American Transformations of Asian Contemplative Traditions,ProQuest885589248
Goodall, Dominic (1996),Hindu Scriptures, University of California Press, University of California Press,ISBN978-0520207783
Goodding, Robert A. (2013), "A Theologian in a South Indian Kingdom: The Historical Context of the Jivanmuktiviveka of Vidyaranya", in Lindquist, Steven E. (ed.),Religion and Identity in South Asia and Beyond: Essays in Honor of Patrick Olivelle, Anthem Press
Hacker, Paul (1995),Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedanta, SUNY Press,ISBN978-0-7914-2582-4
Halbfass, Wilhelm (2017),India and Europe: An Essay in Philosophical Understanding, Motilal Banarsidass
Heim, M. (2005). "Chapter 35, Differentiations in Hindu ethics". In Schweiker, William (ed.).The Blackwell companion to religious ethics. Wiley.ISBN0-631-21634-0.
Hiltebeitel, Alf (2013)."Hinduism". In Kitagawa, Joseph (ed.).The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture. Routledge.ISBN9781136875977.Archived from the original on 11 January 2023. Retrieved5 August 2021.
Johnson, W.J. (2009). "Atman (self)".A Dictionary of Hinduism. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0198610250.
Jones, Constance; Ryan, James D. (2006).Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Infobase Publishing.
Jones, Richard H. (2004). "Shankara's Advaita".Mysticism and Morality: A New Look at Old Questions. Lanham: Lexington Books. pp. 95–114.
Kalupahana, David J. (1994),A history of Buddhist philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
Kaplan, Stephen (April 2007). "Vidyā and Avidyā: Simultaneous and Coterminous?: A Holographic Model to Illuminate the Advaita Debate".Philosophy East and West. 2.57 (2):178–203.doi:10.1353/pew.2007.0019.JSTOR4488090.S2CID144344856.
Klostermaier, Klaus k. (2007),Hinduism: A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications,ISBN978-1851685387
Kochumuttom, Thomas A. (1999),A buddhist Doctrine of Experience. A New Translation and Interpretation of the Works of Vasubandhu the Yogacarin, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Koller, John M. (2006), "Foreword",A thousand teachings: the Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, Motilall Banarsidass
Koller, John M. (2013), "Shankara", in Meister, Chad; Copan, Paul (eds.),Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, Routledge
Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (1998),A History of India, Routledge
Larson, Gerald James; Bhattacharya, Ram Shankar (1987),The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 4, Princeton University Press
Larson, G.J. (2014), "Introduction to the Philosophy of Samkhya", in Larson, G.J.; Bhattacharya, R.S. (eds.),The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 4, Princeton University Press,ISBN978-0691604411
Lipner, Julius (2000), "The Self of Being and the Being of Self: Samkara on "That You Are" (Tat Tvam Asi)", in Malkovsky, Bradley J. (ed.),New Perspectives on Advaita Vedānta, BRILL
Lochtefeld, James G. (2001).The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism. New York: Rosen Publishing.ISBN0-8239-2287-1.
Lochtefeld, James G. (2002),The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Volume One: A-M, The Rosen Publishing Group
Mackenzie, Matthew (2012), "Luminosity, Subjectivity, and Temporality: An Examination of Buddhist and Advaita views of Consciousness", in Kuznetsova, Irina; Ganeri, Jonardon; Ram-Prasad, Chakravarthi (eds.),Hindu and Buddhist Ideas in Dialogue: Self and No-Self, Routledge
Malkovsky, Bradley J. (2000), "Samkara on Divine Grace", in Malkovsky, Bradley J. (ed.),New Perspectives on Advaita Vedānta: Essays in Commemoration of Professor Richard De Smet, S.J., BRILL
Mayeda, Sengaku (2006), "An Introduction to the Life and Thought of Sankara", in Mayeda, Sengaku (ed.),A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120827714
Menezes, Walter (2017),Exploring Ātman from the Perspective of the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, Springer
Menon, Sangeetha (2012),Advaita Vedanta, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,archived from the original on 10 June 2019, retrieved1 August 2020
Michaels, Axel (2004),Hinduism. Past and present, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press
Milne, Joseph (April 1997), "Advaita Vedanta and typologies of multiplicity and unity: An interpretation of nindual knowledge",International Journal of Hindu Studies,1 (1):165–188,doi:10.1007/s11407-997-0017-6,S2CID143690641
Mohanty, JN (1980), "Understanding some Ontological Differences in Indian Philosophy",Journal of Indian Philosophy,8 (3):205–217,doi:10.1007/BF00166295,S2CID145752220
Morris, Brian (2006),Religion and Anthropology: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge University Press
Mudgal, S.G. (1975).Advaita of Shankara: A Reappraisal. New Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.
Murti, T.R.V. (1983), "The World and the Individual in Indian Religious Thought",Studies in Indian Thought: Collected Papers of Prof. T.R.V. Murti, Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
Muller, Max (1879)."Chandogya Upanishad 6.1-6.16".Sacred Books of the East. The Upanishads, Part I. Oxford University Press.
Muller-Ortega, Paul E. (2010),Triadic Heart of Siva: Kaula Tantricism of Abhinavagupta in the Non-Dual Shaivism of Kashmir, SUNY press
Murthi, S.K. Arun (2009), "The Mulavidya Controversy Among Advaita Vedantins: Was Sankara Himself responsible?",Journal of Indian Philosophy,37 (2):149–177,doi:10.1007/s10781-008-9053-9,S2CID169267710
Murti, T.R.V.The central philosophy of Buddhism. Routledge.ISBN978-0-415-46118-4. (2008 Reprint)
Nakamura, Hajime (1990) [1950],A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part One, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (1990 Reprint)
Nakamura, Hajime (1999),Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Nakamura, Hajime (2004) [1950],A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part Two, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (2004 Reprint)
Nelson, Lance E. (1996), "Living Liberation in Shankara and Classical Advaita: Sharing the Holy Waiting of God", in Fort, Andrew O.; Mumme, Patricia Y. (eds.),Living Liberation in Hindu Thought, SUNY
Nikhilananda, S. (1958),Hinduism : Its meaning for the liberation of the spirit, Harper,ISBN978-0911206265{{citation}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
Novetzke, Christian (2007),Bhakti and Its Public, International Journal of Hindu Studies, vol. 11
Nowicka, Olga (2016), "Conquering the World, Subduing the Minds: Śaṅkara's digvijaya in the Local Context",Cracow Indological Studies,XVIII (18):145–166,doi:10.12797/CIS.18.2016.18.07
Olivelle, Patrick (1992),The Samnyasa Upanisads, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0195070453
Padiyath, Thomas (2014),The Metaphysics of Becoming: On the Relationship between Creativity and God in Whitehead and Supermind and Sachchidananda in Aurobindo, Walter de Gruyter
Pande, Govind Chandra (1994),Life and Thought of Śaṅkarācārya, Motilal Banarsidass Publ,ISBN978-81-208-1104-1
Pandey, S.L. (2000),Pre-Sankara Advaita. In: Chattopadhyana (gen.ed.), "History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization. Volume II Part 2: Advaita Vedanta", Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations
Plott, John (2000),Global History of Philosophy: The Patristic-Sutra period (325 – 800 AD), Volume 3, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120805507
Potter, Karl H. (1981), "Gaudapada",Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol.3: Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṃkara and his pupils, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN81-208-0310-8
Potter, Karl H. (2008),Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol. 3: Advaita Vedānta Up to Śaṃkara and His Pupils, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers,ISBN978-81-208-0310-7
Potter, Karl H. (2014),Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol. 3: Advaita Vedānta Up to Śaṃkara and His Pupils, Princeton University Press,ISBN978-0-691-61486-1
Raju, P.T. (1992),The Philosophical Traditions of India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
Raju, P.T. (2006),Idealistic Thought of India, Routledge,ISBN978-1406732627
Ram-Prasad, Chakravarthi (2013),"Situating the Elusive Self of Advaita Vedanta"(PDF), in Siderits, Mark; Thompson, Evan; Zahavi, Dan (eds.),Self, No Self?: Perspectives from Analytical, Phenomenological, and Indian Traditions, Oxford University Press,archived(PDF) from the original on 2 October 2022, retrieved1 August 2020
Rambachan, Anantanand (1991),Accomplishing the Accomplished: Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Sankara, University of Hawaii Press,ISBN978-0-8248-1358-1
Rambachan, Anatanand (1994),The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas, University of Hawaii Press
Renard, Philip (2010),Non-Dualisme. De directe bevrijdingsweg, Cothen: Uitgeverij Juwelenschip
Rigopoulos, Antonio (1998).Dattatreya: The Immortal Guru, Yogin, and Avatara: A Study of the Transformative and Inclusive Character of a Multi-faceted Hindu Deity. State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0-7914-3696-7.
Roeser, Robert W. (2005).An introduction to Hindu India's contemplative psychological perspective on motivation, self, and development (pdf ed.).CiteSeerX10.1.1.582.4733.
Roodurmun, Pulasth Soobah (2002),Bhāmatī and Vivaraṇa Schools of Advaita Vedānta: A Critical Approach, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
Sajdek, Pawel (2019). "The liberation doctrine in Brahmasiddhi of Manḍanamiśra".Argument.9:43–56.doi:10.24917/20841043.03 (inactive 1 July 2025).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link)
Sharma, Arvind (2000), "Sacred Scriptures and the Mysticism of Advaita Vedanta", in Katz, Steven T. (ed.),Mysticism and Sacred Scripture, Oxford University Press
Sharma, Arvind (2004).Sleep as a State of Consciousness in Advaita Vedånta. State University of New York Press.
Sharma, B.N., B. N. Krishnamurti (2000),A History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature, 3rd Edition, Motilal Banarsidass Pvt. Ltd.(2008 Reprint),ISBN978-8120815759
Sheridan, Daniel (1991).Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia (Editor: Jeffrey Timm). State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0791407967.
Sivananda, Swami (1993),All About Hinduism, The Divine Life Society
Sivaraman, K. (1973),Śaivism in Philosophical Perspective: A Study of the Formative Concepts, Problems, and Methods of Śaiva Siddhānta, Motilall Banarsidass
Stoker, Valerie (2016),Polemics and Patronage in the City of Victory: Vyasatirtha, Hindu Sectarianism, and the Sixteenth-Century Vijayanagara Court, University of California Press
Suthren Hirst, J. G. (2005),Śaṃkara's Advaita Vedānta: A Way of Teaching, Routledge,ISBN978-1-134-25441-5
Sydnor, Jon Paul (2023). "Introduction". In Sydnor, Jon Paul; Watson, Anthony J. (eds.).Nondualism: An Interreligious Exploration. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Talbot, Cynthia (2001),Precolonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0-19-513661-6
Vachatimanont, Sakkapohl (2005), "On why the traditional Advaic resolution of jivanmukti is superior to the neo-Vedantic resolution",Macalester Journal of Philosophy,14 (1):47–48
Venkatramaiah, Munagala (2000),Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi: On Realizing Abiding Peace and Happiness, Inner Directions,ISBN1-878019-00-7
Volker, Fabian (2023). "The Plurality of Nonduality: Toward a Tripartite Typology". In Sydnor, Jon Paul; Watson, Anthony J. (eds.).Nondualism: An Interreligious Exploration. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Vroom, H.M. (1989).Religions and the Truth: Philosophical Reflections and Perspectives. Eerdmans Publishing.ISBN978-0802805027.
Werner, Karel (1994),The Yogi and the Mystic, Routledge
^"cause". Archived fromthe original on 11 February 2017,"effect". Archived fromthe original on 11 February 2017,Sanskrit English Dictionary, University of Koeln, Germany.
Comans, Michael (2000),The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Rambachan, A. (2006).The Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity. State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0791468524.
Sarma, Candradhara (2007),The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120813120
History
Nakamura, Hajime (1950),A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part One (1990 Reprint), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
Nakamura, Hajime (1950),A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part Two (2004 Reprint), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
Potter, Karl H. (1981),Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. 3: Advaita Vedanta up to Sankara and his Pupils, Princeton: Princeton University Press
Potter, Karl H. (2006),Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies vol. 11: Advaita Vedānta from 800 to 1200, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
Isaeva, N.V. (1995),From Early Vedanta to Kashmir Shaivism: Gaudapada, Bhartrhari, and Abhinavagupta, SUNY Press
Clark, Matthew (2006),The Daśanāmī-saṃnyāsīs. The Integration Of Ascetic Lineages Into An Order, BRILL
Topical studies
Arvind Sharma (1995),The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedānta: A Comparative Study in Religion and Reason, Pennsylvania State University Press
Satyapal Verma (1992),Role of Reason in Sankara Vedānta, Parimal Publication, Delhi
King, Richard (1995),Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: the Mahāyāna context of the Gauḍapādīya-kārikā, State University of New York Press,ISBN9780791425138
Shankara
Natalia V. Isayeva (1993),Shankara and Indian philosophy, SUNY, New York
Elayath. K. N. Neelakantan (1990),The Ethics of Sankara, University of Calicut
Raghunath D. Karmarkar (1966),Sankara's Advaita, Karnatak University, Dharwar
King, Richard (2002),Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", Routledge
Rambachan, Anantanand (1994).The limits of scripture: Vivekananda's reinterpretation of the Vedas. [Honolulu]: University of Hawaii Press.ISBN0-8248-1542-4.
Hindu philosophy
