Brahman is a concept found in theVedas, and it is extensively discussed in the earlyUpanishads, with a variety of meanings.[7] According to Gavin Flood, the concept ofBrahman evolved and expanded from thepower of sound, words, and rituals in Vedic times to the "deeper foundation of all phenomena," the "essence of the self (Atman, Self)," and the deeper "truth of a person beyond apparent difference."[8] However, according to various other scholars such as Barbara Holdrege, Hananya Goodman, and Jan Gonda, the earliest Vedic verses suggest that this ancient meaning was never the only meaning, and the concept evolved and expanded in ancient India.[9][10][11]
In the Upanishads, the concept of Brahman evolves to encompass metaphysical, ontological, and soteriological themes. Brahman is described as the unchanging "primordial reality" that creates, sustains, and ultimately withdraws the universe within itself,[12][13][14][13][15] the final element in a dialectical process which cannot be eliminated or annihilated.[note 1] Brahman is also portrayed as the "divine being" or "Lord," which may manifest as either a distinct deity or as an immanent presence within all individuals. It represents the "knowledge" that leads to spiritual liberation, the "Self."[16]
Brahman is discussed in Hindu texts in relation to the concept ofAtman (Sanskrit:आत्मन्, 'Self'),[7][17]personal,[note 2]impersonal[note 3] orPara Brahman,[note 4] or in various combinations of these qualities depending on the philosophical school.[18] Indualistic schools of Hinduism such as the theistic Dvaita Vedanta, Brahman is different from Atman (Self) in each being.[4][19][20] Innon-dual schools such as theAdvaita Vedanta, the substance ofBrahman is identical to the substance of Atman, is everywhere and inside each living being, and there is connected spiritual oneness in all existence.[21][22][23]
Sanskrit (ब्रह्मन्)Brahman (ann-stem, nominativebráhma, from arootbṛh- "to swell, expand, grow, enlarge") is a neuter noun to be distinguished from the masculinebrahmán—denoting a person associated withBrahman, and fromBrahmā, the creator God in the Hindu Trinity, theTrimurti.Brahman is thus a gender-neutral concept that implies greater impersonality than masculine or feminine conceptions of the deity.Brahman is referred to as the supreme self. Puligandla states it as "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world",[24] while Sinar statesBrahman is a concept that "cannot be exactly defined".[25]
Brahma (ब्रह्म) (nominative singular),brahman (ब्रह्मन्) (stem) (neuter[26]gender) from rootbṛh-, means "to be or make firm, strong, solid, expand, promote".[27]
Brahmana (ब्रह्मन) (nominative singular, never plural), from stemsbrha (to make firm, strong, expand) + Sanskrit-man- which denotes some manifest form of "definite power, inherent firmness, supporting or fundamental principle".[27]
In later Sanskrit usage:
Brahma (ब्रह्म) (nominative singular),brahman (ब्रह्मन्) (stem) (neuter[26]gender) means the concept of the transcendent and immanent ultimate reality, Supreme Cosmic Spirit in Hinduism. The concept is central to Hindu philosophy, especially Vedanta; this is discussed below.
Brahmā (ब्रह्मा) (nominative singular),Brahman (ब्रह्मन्) (stem) (masculinegender), means the deity ordevaPrajāpati Brahmā. He is one of the members of theHindu trinity and is associated with creation, but he does not have a cult in present-day India. This is because Brahmā, the creator-god, is long-lived but not eternal i.e. Brahmā gets absorbed back intoPurusha at the end of an aeon, and is born again at the beginning of a newkalpa.
DeitiesVishnu,Lakshmi,Shiva,Parvati andGanesha. These deities have distinct and complex personalities, yet are often viewed as aspects of and are worshipped as incarnations of the same ultimate reality calledBrahman.[28][note 5]
These are distinct from:
Abrāhmaṇa (ब्राह्मण) (masculine, pronounced[ˈbɽaːɦmɐɳɐ]), (which literally means "pertaining to prayer") is a prose commentary on theVedic mantras—an integral part of the Vedic literature.
Abrāhmaṇa (ब्राह्मण) (masculine, same pronunciation as above), means priest; in this usage the word is usually rendered in English as "Brahmin". This usage is also found in theAtharva Veda. In neuter plural form,Brahmāṇi. SeeVedic priest.
Ishvara, (lit., Supreme Lord), in Advaita, is identified as a partial worldly manifestation (with limited attributes) of the ultimate reality, the attributelessBrahman. InVisishtadvaita andDvaita, however, Ishvara (the Supreme Controller) has infinite attributes and is the source of the impersonalBrahman.
Devas, the expansions ofBrahman/God into various forms, each with a certain quality. In the Vedic religion, there were33 devas.
Brahman is a concept present in VedicSamhitas, the oldest layer of theVedas dated to the late 2nd millennium BCE. For example,[29]
TheṚcs are limited (parimita), TheSamans are limited, And theYajuses are limited, But of the WordBrahman, there is no end.
— Taittiriya Samhita VII.3.1.4, Translated by Barbara Holdrege[29]
The conceptBrahman is referred to in hundreds of hymns in the Vedic literature.[30] The wordBrahma is found inRig veda hymns such as 2.2.10,[31] 6.21.8,[32] 10.72.2[33] and inAtharva veda hymns such as 6.122.5, 10.1.12, and 14.1.131.[30] The concept is found in various layers of the Vedic literature; for example:[30] AitareyaBrahmana 1.18.3, Kausitaki Brahmana 6.12, Satapatha Brahmana 13.5.2.5, Taittiriya Brahmana 2.8.8.10, Jaiminiya Brahmana 1.129, TaittiriyaAranyaka 4.4.1 through 5.4.1, Vajasaneyi Samhita 22.4 through 23.25, Maitrayani Samhita 3.12.1:16.2 through 4.9.2:122.15. The concept is extensively discussed in the Upanishads embedded in the Vedas (see next section), and also mentioned in thevedāṅga (the limbs of Vedas) such as the Srauta sutra 1.12.12 and Paraskara Gryhasutra 3.2.10 through 3.4.5.[30]
Jan Gonda states that the diverse reference ofBrahman in the Vedic literature, starting with Rigveda Samhitas, convey "different senses or different shades of meaning".[9] There is no one single word in modern Western languages that can render the various shades of meaning of the wordBrahman in the Vedic literature, according to Jan Gonda.[9] In verses considered as the most ancient, the Vedic idea ofBrahman is the "power immanent in the sound, words, verses and formulas of Vedas". However, states Gonda, the verses suggest that this ancient meaning was never the only meaning, and the concept evolved and expanded in ancient India.[9]
Barbara Holdrege states that the conceptBrahman is discussed in the Vedas along four major themes: as the Word or verses (Sabdabrahman),[34] as Knowledge embodied in Creator Principle, as Creation itself, and a Corpus of traditions.[35] Hananya Goodman states that the Vedas conceptualizeBrahman as the Cosmic Principles underlying all that exists.[10]Gavin Flood states that the Vedic era witnessed a process of abstraction, where the concept ofBrahman evolved and expanded from the power of sound, words and rituals to the "essence of the universe", the "deeper foundation of all phenomena", the "essence of the self (Atman, Self)", and the deeper "truth of a person beyond apparent difference".[8]
Swan (Hansa, हंस) is the symbol forBrahman-Atman in Hindu iconography.[36][37]
The central concern of allUpanishads is to discover the relations between ritual, cosmic realities (including gods), and the human body/person.[38] The texts do not present a single unified theory, rather they present a variety of themes with multiple possible interpretations, which flowered in post-Vedic era as premises for the diverse schools of Hinduism.[7]
The concept of Brahman in the Upanishads evolves to encompass metaphysical, ontological, and soteriological themes. Brahman is described as the "primordial reality" that creates, sustains, and ultimately withdraws the universe within itself. It is characterized as the "principle of the world," the "absolute," the "universal" force, the "cosmic principle," and the "ultimate cause" of all existence, including gods. Brahman is also portrayed as the "divine being" or "Lord," which may manifest as either a distinct deity or as an immanent presence within all individuals. It represents the "knowledge" that leads to spiritual liberation, the "Self" that is fearless, luminous, exalted, and blissful, and the "essence" of freedom. Brahman is not only the universe within every living being but also the universe beyond, representing both the internal and external worlds in their entirety..[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]
Brahman in the Upanishads is also described as the "essence" and "smallest particle of the cosmos," as well as the infinite universe itself. It is the "Self" within every being, the "truth," the "reality," the "absolute," and "bliss" (ananda). While Brahman cannot be directly perceived through the senses, it can be experienced through deep self-realization.[citation needed]
In the words of philosopherSarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence underlying material phenomena. Though Brahman cannot be seen or heard, its true nature can be comprehended through the cultivation of self-knowledge (atma jnana). This form of knowledge enables one to transcend the illusions of the material world and attain a higher state of consciousness and liberation.[citation needed]
The Upanishads contain severalmahā-vākyas or "Great Sayings" on the concept ofBrahman:[49]
The Upanishad discuss the metaphysical concept ofBrahman in many ways, such as the Śāṇḍilya doctrine in Chapter 3 of the Chandogya Upanishad, among of the oldest Upanishadic texts.[62] The Śāṇḍilya doctrine onBrahman is not unique to Chandogya Upanishad, but found in other ancient texts such as theSatapatha Brahmana in section 10.6.3. It asserts that Atman (the inner essence, Self inside man) exists, theBrahman is identical withAtman, that theBrahman is inside man—thematic quotations that are frequently cited by later schools of Hinduism and modern studies on Indian philosophies.[62][63][64]
This whole universe isBrahman. In tranquility, let one worship It, asTajjalan (that from which he came forth, as that into which he will be dissolved, as that in which he breathes).
Man is a creature of hisKratumaya (क्रतुमयः, will, purpose). Let him therefore have for himself this will, this purpose: The intelligent, whose body is imbued with life-principle, whose form is light, whose thoughts are driven by truth, whose self is like space (invisible but ever present), from whom all works, all desires, all sensory feelings encompassing this whole world, the silent, the unconcerned, this is me, my Self, my Soul within my heart.
This is my Soul in the innermost heart, greater than the earth, greater than the aerial space, greater than these worlds. This Soul, this Self of mine is that Brahman.
' दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः । अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रो ह्यक्षरात्परतः परः He is bright formless, all pervading, existing within and without, unborn, without prana, without mind, pure and beyond the avyakrita, which is beyond all.
न जायते म्रियते वा विपश्चि- न्नायं कुतश्चिन्न बभूव कश्चित् ।अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरेBrahman is neither born, neither dies. It has not sprung from anything and nothing springs from it. It is birthless, eternal, ever lasting and ancient, It is not killed when body is killed.
Paul Deussen notes that teachings similar to above onBrahman, re-appeared centuries later in the words of the 3rd century CENeoplatonic Roman philosopherPlotinus in Enneades 5.1.2.[65]
Brahman is the key metaphysical concept in various schools of Hindu philosophy. It is the theme in its diverse discussions to the two central questions ofmetaphysics: what is ultimately real, and are there principles applying to everything that is real?[68]Brahman is the ultimate "eternally, constant" reality, while the observed universe is a different kind of reality but one which is "temporary, changing"Maya in various orthodox Hindu schools. Maya pre-exists and co-exists withBrahman—the Ultimate Reality, The Highest Universal, the Cosmic Principles.[69]
In addition to the concept ofBrahman, Hindu metaphysics includes the concept ofAtman—or Self, which is also considered ultimately real.[69] The various schools of Hinduism, particularly thedual and non-dual schools, differ on the nature of Atman, whether it is distinct fromBrahman, or same asBrahman. Those that considerBrahman andAtman as distinct are theistic, andDvaita Vedanta and laterNyaya schools illustrate this premise.[70] Those that considerBrahman andAtman as same are monist or pantheistic, andAdvaita Vedanta, laterSamkhya[71] andYoga schools illustrate this metaphysical premise.[72][73][74] In schools that equateBrahman withAtman,Brahman is the sole, ultimate reality.[75] The predominant teaching in the Upanishads is the spiritual identity of Self within each human being, with the Self of every other human being and living being, as well as with the supreme, ultimate realityBrahman.[76][77]
In the metaphysics of the major schools of Hinduism,Maya is perceived reality, one that does not reveal the hidden principles, the true reality—theBrahman.Maya is unconscious,Brahman-Atman is conscious. Maya is the literal and the effect,Brahman is the figurativeUpādāna—the principle and the cause.[69] Maya is born, changes, evolves, dies with time, from circumstances, due to invisible principles of nature. Atman-Brahman is eternal, unchanging, invisible principle, unaffected absolute and resplendent consciousness. Maya, states Archibald Gough, is "the indifferent aggregate of all the possibilities of emanatory or derived existences, pre-existing with Brahman", just like the possibility of a future tree pre-exists in the seed of the tree.[69]
While the Advaita Vedanta sub-school emphasizes the complete equivalence ofBrahman andAtman, it also expounds onBrahman assaguna Brahman—theBrahman with attributes, andnirguna Brahman—theBrahman without attributes.[79] Thenirguna Brahman is theBrahman as it really is, however, thesaguna Brahman is posited as a means to realizingnirguna Brahman, but the Hinduism schools declaresaguna Brahman to be a part of the ultimatenirguna Brahman.[80] The concept of thesaguna Brahman, such as in the form ofavatars, is considered in these schools of Hinduism to be a useful symbolism, path and tool for those who are still on their spiritual journey, but the concept is finally cast aside by the fully enlightened.[80]
Brahman, along with Self (Atman) are part of the ontological[81] premises of Indian philosophy.[82][83] Different schools of Indian philosophy have held widely dissimilar ontologies.Buddhism andCarvaka school of Hinduism deny that there exists anything called "a Self" (individualAtman orBrahman in the cosmic sense), while the orthodox schools of Hinduism,Jainism andAjivikas hold that there exists "a Self".[84][85]
Brahman as well theAtman in every human being (and living being) is considered equivalent and the sole reality, the eternal, self-born, unlimited, innately free, blissful Absolute in schools of Hinduism such as theAdvaita Vedanta andYoga.[86][87][88] Knowing one's own self is knowing the God inside oneself, and this is held as the path to knowing the ontological nature ofBrahman (universal Self) as it is identical to theAtman (individual Self). The nature ofAtman-Brahman is held in these schools, states Barbara Holdrege, to be as a pure being (sat), consciousness (cit) and full of bliss (ananda), and it is formless, distinctionless, nonchanging and unbounded.[86]
In theistic schools, in contrast, such asDvaita Vedanta, the nature ofBrahman is held as eternal, unlimited, innately free, blissful Absolute, while each individual's Self is held as distinct and limited which can at best come close in eternal blissful love of theBrahman (therein viewed as the Godhead).[89]
Other schools of Hinduism have their own ontological premises relating toBrahman, reality and nature of existence.Vaisheshika school of Hinduism, for example, holds a substantial, realist ontology.[90] TheCarvaka school deniedBrahman andAtman, and held a materialist ontology.[91]
Brahman andAtman are key concepts to Hindu theories ofaxiology: ethics and aesthetics.[92][93]Ananda (bliss), state Michael Myers and other scholars, has axiological importance to the concept ofBrahman, as the universal inner harmony.[94][95] Some scholars equateBrahman with the highest value, in an axiological sense.[96]
The axiological concepts ofBrahman andAtman is central to Hindu theory of values.[97] A statement such as 'I am Brahman', states Shaw, means 'I am related to everything', and this is the underlying premise for compassion for others in Hinduism, for each individual's welfare, peace, or happiness depends on others, including other beings and nature at large, and vice versa.[98] Tietge states that even in non-dual schools of Hinduism whereBrahman andAtman are treated ontologically equivalent, the theory of values emphasizes individual agent and ethics. In these schools of Hinduism, states Tietge, the theory of action are derived from and centered in compassion for the other, and not egotistical concern for the self.[99]
The axiological theory of values emerges implicitly from the concepts ofBrahman andAtman, states Bauer.[100] The aesthetics of human experience and ethics are one consequence of self-knowledge in Hinduism, one resulting from the perfect, timeless unification of one's Self with theBrahman, the Self of everyone, everything and all eternity, wherein the pinnacle of human experience is not dependent on an afterlife, but pure consciousness in the present life itself.[100] It does not assume that an individual is weak nor does it presume that he is inherently evil, but the opposite: human Self and its nature is held as fundamentally unqualified, faultless, beautiful, blissful, ethical, compassionate and good.[100][101] Ignorance is to assume it evil, liberation is to know its eternal, expansive, pristine, happy and good nature.[100] The axiological premises in the Hindu thought and Indian philosophies in general, states Nikam, is to elevate the individual, exalting the innate potential of man, where the reality of his being is the objective reality of the universe.[102] The Upanishads of Hinduism, summarizes Nikam, hold that the individual has the same essence and reality as the objective universe, and this essence is the finest essence; the individual Self is the universal Self, and Atman is the same reality and the same aesthetics as theBrahman.[102]
Brahman andAtman are very important teleological concepts.Teleology deals with the apparent purpose, principle, or goal of something. In the first chapter of theShvetashvatara Upanishad, these questions are addressed. It says:
"People who make inquiries about brahman say: What is the cause of Brahman? Why were we born? By what do we live? On what are we established? Governed by whom, O you who know Brahman, do we live in pleasure and in pain, each in our respective situation?
According to the Upanishads, the main purpose/meaning of anything or everything can be explained or achieved/understood only through the realization of the Brahman. The apparent purpose of everything can be grasped by obtaining theBrahman, as theBrahman is referred to that when known, all things become known.[original research?]
"What is that my lord, by which being known, all of this becomes known?" Angiras told him, "Two types of knowledge a man should learn, those who know Brahman tell us — the higher and the lower. The lower of the two consists of the Rgveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda (...), whereas, the higher is that by which one grasps the imperishable (Brahman)."
Elsewhere in the Upanishads, the relationship between Brahman & all knowledge is established, such that any questions of apparent purpose/teleology are resolved when the Brahman is ultimately known. This is found in theAitareya Upanishad 3.3 andBrihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.17.
Knowledge is the eye of all that, and on knowledge it is founded. Knowledge is the eye of the world, and knowledge, the foundation. Brahman is knowing.
One of the main reasons why Brahman should be realized is because it removes suffering from a person's life. Following onAdvaita Vedanta tradition, this is because the person has the ability and knowledge to discriminate between the unchanging (Purusha; Atman-Brahman) and the ever-changing (Prakriti; maya) and so the person is not attached to the transient, fleeting & impermanent. Hence, the person is only content with their true self and not the body or anything else. Further elaborations of Brahman as the central teleological issue are found in Shankara's commentaries of the Brahma Sutras & hisVivekachudamani.[citation needed]
InBrihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.26 it mentions that the atman 'neither trembles in fear nor suffers injury' and theIsha Upanishad 6-7 too talks about suffering as non-existent when one becomes the Brahman as they see the self in all beings and all beings in the self. The famousAdvaita Vedanta commentator Shankara noted thatSabda Pramana (scriptural epistemology) & anubhava (personal experience) is the ultimate & only source of knowing/learning the Brahman, and that its purpose or existence cannot be verified independently because it is not an object of perception/inference (unless one is spiritually advanced, thereby it's truth becomes self-evident/intuitive) & is beyond conceptualizations. But he does note the Upanishads themselves are ultimately derived from use of the various pramanas to derive at ultimate truths (as seen in Yalnavalkya's philosophical inquires). AllVedanta schools agree on this. These teleological discussions inspired some refutations from competing philosophies about the origin/purpose of Brahman &avidya (ignorance) and the relationship between the two, leading to variant schools likeKashmiri Shaivism & others.[citation needed]
The orthodox schools of Hinduism, particularly Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga schools, focus on the concept of Brahman and Atman in their discussion ofmoksha. The Advaita Vedanta holds there is no being/non-being distinction between Atman and Brahman. The knowledge of Atman (Self-knowledge) is synonymous to the knowledge of Brahman inside the person and outside the person. Furthermore, the knowledge of Brahman leads to a sense of oneness with all existence, self-realization, indescribable joy, and moksha (freedom, bliss),[106] because Brahman-Atman is the origin and end of all things, the universal principle behind and at source of everything that exists, consciousness that pervades everything and everyone.[107]
The theistic sub-school such as Dvaita Vedanta of Hinduism, starts with the same premises, but adds the premise that individual Self and Brahman are distinct, and thereby reaches entirely different conclusions where Brahman is conceptualized in a manner similar to God in other major world religions.[19] The theistic schools assert that moksha is the loving, eternal union or nearness of one's Self with the distinct and separate Brahman (Vishnu,Shiva or equivalent henotheism). Brahman, in these sub-schools of Hinduism is considered the highest perfection of existence, which every Self journeys towards in its own way for moksha.[108]
The concept of Brahman, its nature and its relationship with Atman and the observed universe, is a major point of difference between the various sub-schools of theVedanta school of Hinduism.
Advaita Vedanta espousesnondualism.Brahman is the sole unchanging reality,[75] there is no duality, no limited individual Self nor a separate unlimited cosmic Self, rather all Self, all of existence, across all space and time, is one and the same.[21][86][109] The universe and the Self inside each being is Brahman, and the universe and the Self outside each being is Brahman. Brahman is the origin and end of all things, material and spiritual.Brahman is the root source of everything that exists. He states that Brahman can neither be taught nor perceived (as an object of intellectual knowledge), but it can be learned and realized by all human beings.[22] The goal of Advaita Vedanta is to realize that one's Self (Atman) gets obscured by ignorance and false-identification ("Avidya"). When Avidya is removed, the Atman (Self inside a person) is realized as identical with Brahman.[79] The Brahman is not an outside, separate, dual entity, the Brahman is within each person, states Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism.Brahman is all that is eternal, unchanging and that which truly exists.[75] This view is stated in this school in many different forms, such as "Ekam sat" ("Truth is one"), and all isBrahman.
The universe does not simply come from Brahman, itis Brahman. According toAdi Shankara, a proponent ofAdvaita Vedanta, the knowledge of Brahman thatshruti provides cannot be obtained by any other means besides self inquiry.[110]
InAdvaita Vedanta, nirguna Brahman is held to be the ultimate and sole reality.[75][80] Consciousness is not a property of Brahman but rather its very nature. In this respect, Advaita Vedanta differs from other Vedanta schools.[111]
Theoffering is Brahman; the oblation is Brahman; offered by Brahman into the fire of Brahman. Brahman will be attained by him, who always sees Brahman in action. – Hymn 4.24[112][113]
He who finds his happiness within, His delight within, And his light within, This yogin attains the bliss of Brahman, becoming Brahman. – Hymn 5.24[114]
Brahman ofDvaita Vedanta is a concept similar to God in major world religions.[19] Dvaita holds that the individual Self is dependent on God, but distinct.[19] Dvaita philosophy argues against the concept of a shared existence between Brahman and finite beings. It sees any concept of shared existence or non-dualism (Advaita) as incompatible with the nature of Brahman's transcendent perfection. Madhva places importance on the unique individuality of each entity (vishesha).[115]
Dvaita propounds Tattvavada which means understanding differences betweenTattvas (entities) within the universal substrate as follows:[citation needed]
Jîva-Îshvara-bheda — difference between the Self and the Supreme God
Jada-Îshvara-bheda — difference between the insentient and the Supreme God
Mitha-jîva-bheda — difference between any two Selves
Jada-jîva-bheda — difference between insentient and the Self
Mitha-jada-bheda — difference between any two insentients
InVishishtadvaita, Ramanuja asserts that Brahman is God, and that this God is Narayana. In his commentary on theBrahma Sutras 1.1.1, Ramanuja defines Brahman as the "'highest person,' one who by his own nature is free from all imperfections and in possession of host of innumerable auspicious qualities of unsurpassable excellence." Using this definition, Ramanuja argues that Brahman must be God because Brahman's qualities are unsurpassably superior to all, and thus "only the Lord of all can thus be denoted, and 'Brahman' primarily denotes him alone". Ramanuja asserts that the relationship between God and the individual selves must be one of devotion, and moksha or liberation is said by him to be caused by the selves' worship of Brahman: "The cessation of bondage...is to be obtained only through the grace of the highest Person who is pleased by worshipper's meditation, which is devotion".[116]
TheAcintya Bheda Abheda philosophy is similar toDvaitadvaita. In this philosophy, Brahman is not just impersonal, but also personal.[117] That Brahman is Supreme Personality of Godhead, though on first stage of realization (by process calledjnana) of Absolute Truth, He is realized as impersonal Brahman, then as personal Brahman having eternalVaikuntha abode (also known as Brahmalokah sanatana), then asParamatma (by process ofyoga–meditation on Supreme self, Vishnu-God in heart)—Vishnu (Narayana, also in everyone's heart) who has many abodes known as Vishnu lokas (Vaikuntha), and finally (Absolute Truth is realized bybhakti) asBhagavan, Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is source of both Paramatma and Brahman (personal, impersonal, or both).[117][original research?]
The Bhakti movement of Hinduism built its theosophy around two concepts of Brahman—Nirguna andSaguna.[118]Nirguna Brahman was the concept of the Ultimate Reality as formless, without attributes or quality.[119]Saguna Brahman, in contrast, was envisioned and developed as with form, attributes and quality.[119] The two had parallels in the ancient pantheistic unmanifest and theistic manifest traditions, respectively, and traceable to Arjuna-Krishna dialogue in theBhagavad Gita.[118][120] It is the same Brahman, but viewed from two perspectives, one fromNirguni knowledge-focus and other fromSaguni love-focus, united as Krishna (an 8thincarnation ofLord Vishnu) in the Gita.[120]Nirguna bhakta's poetry wereJnana-shrayi, or had roots in knowledge.[118]Saguna bhakta's poetry werePrema-shrayi, or with roots in love.[118] In Bhakti, the emphasis is reciprocal love and devotion, where the devotee loves God, and God loves the devotee.[120]
Jeaneane Fowler states that the concepts of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman, at the root of Bhakti movementtheosophy, underwent more profound development with the ideas ofVedanta school of Hinduism, particularly those ofAdi Shankara's Advaita Vedanta,Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, andMadhvacharya's Dvaita Vedanta.[119] Two 12th-century influential treatises on bhakti wereSandilya Bhakti Sutra—a treatise resonating with Nirguna-bhakti, andNarada Bhakti Sutra—a treatise that leans towards Saguna-bhakti.[121]
Nirguna andSaguna Brahman concepts of the Bhakti movement has been a baffling one to scholars, particularly theNirguni tradition because it offers, states David Lorenzen, "heart-felt devotion to a God without attributes, without even any definable personality".[122] Yet given the "mountains ofNirguni bhakti literature", adds Lorenzen, bhakti forNirguna Brahman has been a part of the reality of the Hindu tradition along with the bhakti forSaguna Brahman.[122] These were two alternate ways of imagining God during the bhakti movement.[118]
Buddhism rejects the Upanishadic doctrine of Brahman and Atman (permanent Self, essence).[note 6] According to Damien Keown, "the Buddha said he could find no evidence for the existence of either the personal Self (atman) or its cosmic counterpart (brahman)".[123] The metaphysics of Buddhism rejects Brahman (ultimate being), Brahman-like essence, Self and anything metaphysically equivalent through itsAnatta doctrine,[124][125][126] but their belief of Trikaya is very similar to the sat-cit-ananda characteristics of Brahman.
According to Merv Fowler, some forms of Buddhism have incorporated concepts that resemble that of Brahman.[note 7] As an example, Fowler cites the earlySarvastivada school of Buddhism, which "had come to accept a verypantheistic religious philosophy, and are important because of the impetus they gave to the development ofMahayana Buddhism".[127] According to William Theodore De Bary, in the doctrines of theYogacara school of Mahayana Buddhism, "the Body of Essence, the Ultimate Buddha, who pervaded and underlay the whole universe [...] was in fact the World Self, the Brahman of the Upanishads, in a new form".[128] According to Fowler, some scholars have identified the Buddhistnirvana, conceived of as the Ultimate Reality, with the Hindu Brahman/atman; Fowler claims that this view "has gained little support in Buddhist circles."[129] Fowler asserts that the authors of a number of Mahayana texts took pains to differentiate their ideas from the Upanishadic doctrine of Brahman.[note 8]
Brahma as a surrogate for Brahman in Buddhist texts
The spiritual concept of Brahman is far older in the Vedic literature[citation needed], and some scholars suggest deity Brahma may have emerged as a personal conception and icon with form and attributes (saguna version) of the impersonal, nirguna (without attributes), formless universal principle called Brahman.[130] In the Hindu texts, one of the earliest mentions of deity Brahma along withVishnu andShiva is in the fifthPrapathaka (lesson) of theMaitrayaniya Upanishad, probably composed in late 1st millennium BCE, after the rise of Buddhism.[131][132][133]
The early Buddhists attacked the concept of Brahma, states Gananath Obeyesekere, and therebypolemically attacked the Vedic and Upanishadic concept of gender neutral, abstract metaphysical Brahman.[134] This critique of Brahma in early Buddhist texts aims at ridiculing theVedas, but the same texts simultaneously callmetta (loving-kindness, compassion) as the state of union with Brahma. The early Buddhist approach to Brahma was to reject any creator aspect, while retaining the value system in the VedicBrahmavihara concepts, in the Buddhist value system.[134] According to Martin Wiltshire, the term "Brahma loka" in the Buddhist canon, instead of "Svarga loka", is likely a Buddhist attempt to choose and emphasize the "truth power" and knowledge focus of the Brahman concept in the Upanishads.[135] Simultaneously, by reformulating Brahman as Brahma and relegating it within its Devas andSamsara theories, early Buddhism rejected the Atman-Brahman premise of the Vedas to present its ownDhamma doctrines (anicca,dukkha andanatta).[136]
Victor H. Mair thought that Taoists in the early history of the faith had positive "cultural relations" with Hindu groups and that theTao Te Ching was written in reaction toIndian philosophy and that the author(s) viewed Brahman as being the same as Tao.[138]
Ik Onkar (left) is part of theMul Mantar in Sikhism, where it means "Onkar [God, Reality] is one".[139] The Onkar of Sikhism is related to Om—also calledOmkāra[140]—in Hinduism.[139][141] The ancient texts of Hinduism state Om to be a symbolism for the highest reality,Brahman.[142][143]
The metaphysical concept of Brahman, particularly asnirguni Brahman—attributeless, formless, eternal Highest Reality—is at the foundation ofSikhism.[144] This belief is observed throughnirguni Bhakti by the Sikhs.[145][146]
In Gauri, which is part of theGuru Granth Sahib, Brahman is declared as "One without a second", in Sri Rag "everything is born of Him, and is finally absorbed in Him", in Var Asa "whatever we see or hear is the manifestation of Brahman".[147] Nesbitt states that the first two words,Ik Onkar, in the twelve-word Mul Mantar at the opening of the Sikh scripture Guru Granth Sahib, has been translated in three different ways by scholars: "There is one god", "This being is one", and as "One reality is".[139]
Similar emphasis on "One without a second" for metaphysical concept of Brahman, is found in ancient texts of Hinduism, such as the Chandogya Upanishad's chapter 6.2.[148][149] The ideas about God and Highest Reality in Sikhism share themes found in theSaguna andNirguna concepts of Brahman in Hinduism.[144][150]
The concept of Ultimate Reality (Brahman) is also referred in Sikhism asNam,Sat-naam orNaam, andIk Oankar like HinduOm symbolizes this Reality.[151][152]
Scholars contest whether the concept of Brahman is rejected or accepted in Jainism. The concept of a theistic God is rejected by Jainism, butJiva or "Atman (Self) exists" is held to be a metaphysical truth and central to its theory of rebirths andKevala Jnana.[153]
Bissett states that Jainism accepts the "material world" and "Atman", but rejects Brahman—the metaphysical concept of Ultimate Reality and Cosmic Principles found in the ancient texts of Hinduism.[154] Goswami, in contrast, states that the literature of Jainism has an undercurrent of monist theme, where the self who gains the knowledge of Brahman (Highest Reality, Supreme Knowledge) is identical to Brahman itself.[155] Jaini states that Jainism neither accepts nor rejects the premise of Ultimate Reality (Brahman), instead Jain ontology adopts a many sided doctrine calledAnekantavada. This doctrine holds that "reality is irreducibly complex" and no human view or description can represent the Absolute Truth.[156][157] Those who have understood and realized the Absolute Truth are the liberated ones and the Supreme Self (Paramatman), withKevala Jnana.[156]
Comparison of Brahma, Brahman, Brahmin and Brahmanas
Brahma is distinct from Brahman.[158] Brahma is a male deity, in the post-Vedic Puranic literature,[159] who creates but neither preserves nor destroys anything. He is envisioned in some Hindu texts to have emerged from the metaphysical Brahman along with Vishnu (preserver), Shiva (destroyer), all other gods, goddesses, matter and other beings.[160][159][161]
Brahman is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality,[158][162][163] that is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence.[160] It is envisioned as either the cause or that which transforms itself into everything that exists in the universe as well as all beings, that which existed before the present universe and time, which exists as current universe and time, and that which will absorb and exist after the present universe and time ends.[160] It is a gender neutral abstract concept.[160][164][165] The abstract Brahman concept is predominant in the Vedic texts, particularly the Upanishads;[166] while the deity Brahma finds minor mention in the Vedas and the Upanishads.[167] In the Puranic and the Epics literature, the deity Brahma appears more often, but inconsistently.
Some texts suggest that the god Vishnu created Brahma (Vaishnavism),[168] others suggest god Shiva created Brahma (Shaivism),[169] yet others suggest goddess Devi created Brahma (Shaktism),[170] and these texts then go on to state that Brahma is a secondary creator of the world working respectively on their behalf.[170][171] A similarity between Brahma and Brahman is that Brahman is said to be an anchor for the world and the relations between all things, including opposites, in it,[172] whereas Brahma is a creator god who aids the world in many Hindu and Buddhist traditions.
Further, the medieval era texts of these major theistic traditions of Hinduism assert that thesaguna[note 9] Brahman is Vishnu,[174] is Shiva,[175] or is Devi[176] respectively, they are different names or aspects of the Brahman, and that the Atman (Self) within every living being is the same or part of this ultimate, eternal Brahman.[177]
Brahmin is avarna inHinduism specialising in theory as priests, preservers and transmitters of sacred literature across generations.[178][179]
TheBrahmanas are one of the four ancient layers of texts within theVedas. They are primarily a digest incorporating myths, legends, the explanation of Vedic rituals and in some cases philosophy.[180][181] They are embedded within each of the four Vedas, and form a part of theHinduśruti literature.[182]
^[a]Hark, Lisa; DeLisser, Horace (2011).Achieving Cultural Competency. John Wiley & Sons.Three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, and other deities are considered manifestations of and are worshipped as incarnations of Brahman. [b]Toropov & Buckles 2011: The members of various Hindu sects worship a dizzying number of specific deities and follow innumerable rites in honor of specific gods. Because this is Hinduism, however, its practitioners see the profusion of forms and practices as expressions of the same unchanging reality. The panoply of deities are understood by believers as symbols for a single transcendent reality. [d]Orlando O. Espín, James B. Nickoloff (2007).An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies. Liturgical Press.While Hindus believe in many devas, many are monotheistic to the extent that they will recognise only one Supreme Being, a God or Goddess who is the source and ruler of the devas.
^Merv Fowler,Zen Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 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 [...] The true Self and Brahman are one and the same. Known as the Brahman-Atman synthesis, this theory, which is central toUpanisadic thought, is the cornerstone of Indian philosophy. The Brahman-Atman synthesis, which posits the theory of a permanent, unchanging self, was anathema to Buddhists, and it was as a reaction to the synthesis that Buddhism first drew breath. Merv Fowler p. 47: "For theUpanisadic sages, the real is the Self, is Atman, is Brahman. [...] To the Buddhist, however, any talk of anAtman or permanent, unchanging Self, the very kernel ofUpanisadic thought, is anathema, a false notion of manifest proportion."
^Merv Fowler,Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 1999), p. 34: "It was inevitable that the non-theistic philosophy of orthodox Buddhism should court the older Hindu practices and, in particular, infuse into its philosophy the belief in a totally transcendent Absolute of the nature of Brahman."
^Merv Fowler,Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 1999), p. 82: "The original writers of these Mahayana texts were not at all pleased that their writings were seen to contain the Brahman of theUpanisads in a new form. The authors of theLankavatara strenuously denied that the womb of Tathagatahood, [...] was in any way equatable with the 'eternal self', the Brahmanicalatman ofUpanisadic thought. Similarly, the claim in theNirvana Sutra that the Buddha regarded Buddhahood as a 'great atman' caused the Yogacarins considerable distress."
^abFor dualism school of Hinduism, see: Francis X. Clooney (2010),Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions,Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0199738724, pages 51–58, 111–115; For monist school of Hinduism, see: B. Martinez-Bedard (2006),Types of Causes in Aristotle and Sankara, Thesis – Department of Religious Studies (Advisors: Kathryn McClymond and Sandra Dwyer), Georgia State University, pages 18–35
^Fowler 2002, pp. 49–55 (in Upanishads), 318–319 (in Vishistadvaita), 246–248 and 252–255 (in Advaita), 342–343 (in Dvaita), 175–176 (in Samkhya-Yoga).
^abcStephen Philips (1998),Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Brahman to Derrida (Editor; Edward Craig), Routledge,ISBN978-0415187077, pages 1–4
^abGavin Flood (1996),An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press,ISBN978-0521438780, pages 84–85
^See Rigveda Chapter 1.164; Karl Potter and Harold Coward, The Philosophy of the Grammarians,Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Volume 5, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers,ISBN978-8120804265, pages 34–35
^Klaus K. Klostermaier (2007),A Survey of Hinduism, Third Edition, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0791470824, Chapter 12: Atman and Brahman – Self and All
^abcdMichael Myers (2000), Brahman: A Comparative Theology, Routledge,ISBN978-0700712571, pages 124–127
^Thomas Padiyath (2014),The Metaphysics of Becoming, De Gruyter,ISBN978-3110342550, pages 155–157
^See Rigveda Chapter 1.164; Karl Potter and Harold Coward, The Philosophy of the Grammarians,Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Volume 5, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers,ISBN978-8120804265, pages 34–35
^Barbara Holdrege (1995),Veda and Torah: Transcending the Textuality of Scripture, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0791416402, page 24
^Lindsay Jones (2005),Encyclopedia of religion, Volume 13, Macmillan Reference,ISBN978-0028657332, page 8894, Quote: "In Hindu iconography the swan personifies Brahman-Atman, the transcendent yet immanent ground of being, the Self."
^Denise Cush (2007), Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Routledge,ISBN978-0415556231, page 697
Anthony Warder (2009),A Course in Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120812444, pages 25–28;
D. D. Meyer (2012),Consciousness, Theatre, Literature and the Arts, Cambridge Scholars Publishing,ISBN978-1443834919, page 250;
Joel Brereton (1995),Eastern Canons: Approaches to the Asian Classics (Editors: William Theodore De Bary, Irene Bloom), Columbia University Press,ISBN978-0231070058, page 130;
S. Radhakrishnan (1914), "The Vedanta philosophy and the Doctrine of Maya",International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 24, No. 4, pages 431–451
^abcPaul Deussen,Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120814684, pages 110–111 with preface and footnotes
^abMax Muller,Chandogya Upanishad 3.13.7,The Upanishads, Part I, Oxford University Press, page 48 with footnotes
^abcdArchibald Edward Gough (2001),The Philosophy of the Upanishads and Ancient Indian Metaphysics, Routledge,ISBN978-0415245227, pages 47–48
^Roy W. Perrett (Editor, 2000),Indian Philosophy: Metaphysics, Volume 3, Taylor & Francis,ISBN978-0815336082, page xvii; K. K. Chakrabarti (1999),Classical Indian Philosophy of Mind: The Nyaya Dualist Tradition, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0791441718 pages 279–292
^John C. Plott et al (2000),Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120801585, pages 60-62
^Julius Lipner (2004),The Hindu World (Editors: S. Mittal and G. Thursby), Routledge,ISBN0415215277, pages 22–23
^Laurie Patton (2004),The Hindu World (Editors: S. Mittal and G. Thursby), Routledge,ISBN0415215277, pages 45–50
^J. D. Fowler (1996),Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices, Sussex University Press,ISBN978-1898723608, pages 135–137
^William Indich (2000),Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120812512, page 5
^Paul Hacker (1978), Eigentumlichkeiten dr Lehre und Terminologie Sankara: Avidya, Namarupa, Maya, Isvara, in Kleine Schriften (Editor: L. Schmithausen), Franz Steiner Verlag, Weisbaden, pages 101–109 (in German), also pages 69–99; Advaita Vedanta - A Bird's Eye View, Topic III:Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, D. Krishna Ayyar (2011)
^abcWilliam Wainwright (2012),Concepts of God,Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, (Accessed on: 13 June 2015)
^that is things, beings or truths that are presumed to exist for its philosophical theory to be true, and what is the nature of that which so exists?; see: Edward Craig (1998),Ontology,Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy,ISBN978-0415073103
^Edward Craig (1998),Ontology,Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy,ISBN978-0415073103, Accessed (13 June 2015)
^K. N. Jayatilleke (2010),Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge,ISBN978-8120806191, pages 246–249, from note 385 onwards; Steven Collins (1994),Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press,ISBN978-0791422175, page 64; Quote: "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine ofātman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no Self, no unchanging essence."; Edward Roer (Translator),Shankara's Introduction, p. 2, atGoogle Books, pages 2–4 Katie Javanaud (2013),Is The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?,Philosophy Now John C. Plott et al (2000),Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120801585, page 63, Quote: "The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism".
^M. Prabhakar (2012), Review: An Introduction to Indian Philosophy,Philosophy in Review, 32(3), pages 158–160
^abcBarbara Holdrege (2004),The Hindu World (Editors: S. Mittal and G. Thursby), Routledge,ISBN0415215277, pages 241–242
^Anantanand Rambachan (2014),A Hindu Theology of Liberation: Not-Two Is Not One, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-1438454559, pages 131–142
^Ian Whicher (1999),The Integrity of the Yoga Darsana: A Reconsideration of Classical Yoga, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0791438152, pages 298–300; Mike McNamee and William J. Morgan (2015),Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Sport, Routledge,ISBN978-0415829809, pages 135–136,Quote: "As a dualistic philosophy largely congruent with Samkhya's metaphysics, Yoga seeks liberation through the realization that Atman equals Brahman; it involves a cosmogonic dualism: purusha an absolute consciousness, and prakriti original and primeval matter."
^Francis Clooney and Tony Stewart (2004),The Hindu World (Editors: S. Mittal and G. Thursby), Routledge,ISBN0415215277, pages 166–167
^Randy Kloetzli and Alf Hiltebeitel (2004),The Hindu World (Editors: S. Mittal and G. Thursby), Routledge,ISBN0415215277, page 554
^Michael Myers (2000),Brahman: A Comparative Theology, Routledge,ISBN978-0700712571, pages 30–31
^R. Prasad and P. D. Chattopadhyaya (2008),A Conceptual-analytic Study of Classical Indian Philosophy of Morals, Concept,ISBN978-8180695445, pages 56–59
^G. C. Pande (1990),Foundations of Indian Culture, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120807105, pages 49–50
^Michael W. Myers (1998),Śaṅkarācārya and Ānanda,Philosophy East and West, Vol. 48, No. 4, pages 553–567
^Robert S. Hartman (2002),The Knowledge of Good: Critique of Axiological Reason, Rodopi,ISBN978-9042012202, page 225
^T. M. P. Mahadevan (1954),The Metaphysics of Śaṁkara,Philosophy East and West, Vol. 3, No. 4, pages 359–363
^Katherine L Tietge (1997),Ontology and Genuine Moral Action: Jñaña (Intuitive Perception) Ethics and Karma-Yoga in Sankara's Advaita Vedanta and Schopenhauer's On the Basis of Morality, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Philosophy, Southern Illinois University (US),Archive Link
^Anantanand Rambachan (1994),The limits of scripture: Vivekananda's reinterpretation of the Vedas, University of Hawaii Press, pages 124–125
^Karl Potter (2008),The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Advaita Vedānta Up to Śaṃkara and His Pupils, Volume 3, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 210–215
^Betty Stafford (2010) "Dvaita, Advaita, And Viśiṣṭadvaita: Contrasting Views Of Mokṣa",Asian Philosophy, pages 215–224
^Rosen Dalal (2014), Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide, Penguin,ISBN978-8184752779, see article on Brahman
^Anantanand Rambachan (1994),The limits of scripture: Vivekananda's reinterpretation of the Vedas. University of Hawaii Press, pages 125, 124
^[Sangeetha Menon (2007),Advaita Vedānta],Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^Christopher Key Chapple (Editor) and Winthrop Sargeant (Translator),The Bhagavad Gita: Twenty-fifth–Anniversary Edition, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-1438428420, page 224
^Christopher Key Chapple (Editor) and Winthrop Sargeant (Translator),The Bhagavad Gita: Twenty-fifth–Anniversary Edition, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-1438428420, page 266
^K. N. Jayatilleke (1998).Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 68, 374.ISBN978-81-208-0619-1., Quote: "We may conclude from the above that the rise of Buddhism is not far removed in time from, though it is prior to, the Maitri Upanishad".
^Jan Gonda (1968), The Hindu Trinity, Anthropos, Vol. 63, pages 215–219
^abcEleanor Nesbitt (2005),Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0192806017, Chapter 4
^Jean Holm and John Bowker,Worship, Bloomsbury, ISBN, page 67
^Wendy Doniger (2000), Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, Merriam Webster,ISBN978-0877790440, page 500
^Rangaswami Sudhakshina (2012),Roots of Vendanta, Penguin,ISBN978-0143064459, page 405
^David Leeming (2005),The Oxford Companion to World Mythology, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0195156690, page 54
^abS. S. Kohli (1993),The Sikh and Sikhism, Atlantic,ISBN81-71563368, page 39
^Hardip Syan (2014), inThe Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies (Editors: Pashaura Singh, Louis E. Fenech), Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0199699308, page 178
^A. Mandair (2011), Time and religion-making in modern Sikhism, inTime, History and the Religious Imaginary in South Asia (Editor: Anne Murphy), Routledge,ISBN978-0415595971, pages 188–190
^S. S. Kohli (1993),The Sikh and Sikhism, Atlantic,ISBN81-71563368, page 38
Michaels, Axel (2004).Hinduism. Past and present. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Olivelle, Patrick (1998).The Early Upanisads. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0195124354.
Olivelle, Patrick (2008).Upanisads. Oxford World Classics.
Potter, Karl H. (2008),The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Advaita Vedānta Up to Śaṃkara and His Pupils, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
Puligandla, Ramakrishna (1997),Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy, New Delhi: D. K. Printworld (P) Ltd.
Raju, P. T. (1992),The Philosophical Traditions of India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
Sinari, Ramakant (2000),Advaita and Contemporary Indian Philosophy. 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
Toropov, Brandon; Buckles, Luke (2011),Guide to World Religions, Penguin
.jpg)
