Vedanta (/veɪˈdɑːntə/;Sanskrit:वेदान्त,IAST:Vedānta[ʋeːdɑ́ːntɐ]), also known asUttara Mīmāṃsā, is one of the six orthodox (āstika) traditions ofHindu philosophy and textualexegesis. The wordVedanta means 'conclusion of theVedas,' and encompasses the ideas that emerged from, or aligned and reinterpreted, the speculations and enumerations contained in theUpanishads, focusing, with varying emphasis, on devotion, knowledge, and liberation. Vedanta developed into many traditions, all of which give their specific interpretations of a common group of texts called thePrasthānatrayī, translated as 'the three sources': theUpanishads, theBrahma Sutras, and theBhagavad Gita.[1]
All Vedanta traditions place great emphasis on textual exegesis and contain extensive discussions onontology,soteriology, andepistemology, even as there is much disagreement among the various traditions.[2] Independently considered, they may seem completely disparate due to the pronounced differences in thoughts and reasoning.[3]
Most major Vedanta schools, except Advaita Vedanta and Neo-Vedanta, are related toVaishnavism and emphasize devotion (Bhakti) toGod, understood asVishnu or a relatedmanifestation.[9][10] Advaita Vedanta, on the other hand, emphasizesJñana (knowledge) andJñana Yoga overtheistic devotion, though Shankara may also have been a Vaishnavite.[b] While themonism of Advaita has attracted considerable attention in the West due to the influence of the 14th century AdvaitinVidyaranya and modernHindus likeSwami Vivekananda andRamana Maharshi, most Vedanta traditions focus on Vaishnavatheology.[11]
Veda (वेद) — refers to the four sacred Vedic texts.
Anta (अन्त) — meaning "end."
The wordVedanta literally means theend of the Vedas and originally referred to theUpanishads.[12][13] Vedanta is concerned with thejñānakāṇḍa or knowledge section of the vedas which is called theUpanishads.[14][15] The meaning of Vedanta expanded later to encompass the different philosophical traditions that interpret and explain thePrasthānatrayī in the light of their respective views on the relation between humans and the Divine or Absolute reality.[12][16]
TheUpanishads may be regarded as the end ofVedas in different senses:[17]
They were the last literary products of the Vedic period.
They represent the pinnacle of Vedic philosophy.
They were taught and debated last, in theSannyasa (ascetic) stage.[12][18]
Vedanta is one of the sixorthodox (āstika) traditions of textual exegesis andIndian philosophy.[13] It is also calledUttara Mīmāṃsā, which means the "latter enquiry" or "higher enquiry"; and is often contrasted withPūrva Mīmāṃsā, the "former enquiry" or "primary enquiry".Pūrva Mīmāṃsā deals with thekarmakāṇḍa or ritualistic section (theSamhita andBrahmanas) in theVedas whileUttara Mīmāṃsā concerns itself with the deeper questions of the relation between humans and Divine or Absolute reality.[19][20][c]
Brahman -Īśvara (God), exists as the unchanging material cause and instrumental cause of the world. The exception is that Dvaita Vedanta does not hold Brahman to be the material cause, but only the efficient cause.[24]
The self (Ātman orJīva) is the agent of its own acts (karma) and the recipient of the consequences of these actions.[25]
Belief in rebirth (samsara) and the desirability of release from the cycle of rebirths(moksha).[25]
The mainUpanishads, theBhagavadgītā and theBrahma Sūtras are the foundational scriptures in Vedanta. All traditions of Vedanta give a specific exegesis of these texts, collectively called thePrasthānatrayī, literally,three sources.[14][26]
TheUpanishads,[d] orŚruti prasthāna; considered theSruti, the "heard" (and repeated) foundation of Vedanta.
TheBrahma Sūtras, orNyaya prasthana /Yukti prasthana; considered the reason-based foundation of Vedanta.
TheBhagavadgītā, orSmriti prasthāna; considered theSmriti (remembered tradition) foundation of Vedanta.
All prominent Vedantic teachers, includingShankara,Bhaskara,Ramanuja,Madhva,Nimbarka, andVallabha wrote commentaries on these three sources. TheBrahma Sūtras ofBadarayana serve as abhedabheda-based synthesis of the teachings found in the diverseUpanishads, and while there may have been other similar syntheses in the past, only the Brahma Sūtras have survived to the present day.[14] TheBhagavadgītā, with its syncretism ofSamkhya,Yoga, and Upanishadic thought, has also been a significant influence on Vedantic thought.[28]
All Vedāntins agree that scripture (śruti) is the only means of knowing (pramāṇa) regarding spiritual matters (which are beyond perception and inference).[29] This is explained byRāmānuja as follows:
A theory that rests exclusively on human concepts may at some other time or place be refuted by arguments devised by cleverer people.... The conclusion is that with regard to supernatural matters, Scripture alone is the epistemic authority and that reasoning is to be used only in support of Scripture’ [Śrī Bhāṣya 2.1.12].[29]
For specific sub-traditions of Vedanta, other texts may be equally important. For example, for Advaita Vedanta, the works ofAdi Shankara are nominally central, though other teachers were equally, or even more, influential. For the theisticVaishnava schools of Vedanta, theBhāgavata Purāṇa is particularly important. TheBhāgavata Purāṇa is one of the most widely commented upon works in Vedanta.[30] This text is so central to the Krishna-centered Vedanta schools thatVallabha added the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as a fourth text to thePrasthānatrayī (three classic scriptures of Vedanta).[31]
Shankara, in formulating Advaita, talks of two conceptions ofBrahman:
Parā or HigherBrahman: The undifferentiated, absolute, infinite, transcendental, supra-relational Brahman beyond all thought and speech is defined asparāBrahman,nirviśeṣa Brahman, ornirguṇa Brahman and is the Absolute of metaphysics.
Aparā or LowerBrahman: TheBrahman with qualities defined asaparāBrahman orsaguṇaBrahman. ThesaguṇaBrahman is endowed with attributes and represents the personal God of religion.
Ramanuja, in formulating Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, rejectsNirguṇa – that the undifferentiated Absolute is inconceivable – and adopts a theistic interpretation of theUpanishads, acceptingBrahman asĪśvara, the personal God who is the seat of all auspicious attributes, as the One reality. The God of Vishishtadvaita is accessible to the devotee, yet remains the Absolute, with differentiated attributes.[36]
Madhva, in expounding Dvaita philosophy, maintains thatVishnu is the supreme God, thus identifying theBrahman, or absolute reality, of theUpanishads with a personal god, as Ramanuja had done before him.[37][38] Nimbarka, in his Dvaitadvata philosophy, accepted theBrahman both asnirguṇa and assaguṇa. Vallabha, in his Shuddhadvaita philosophy, not only accepts the triple ontological essence of theBrahman, but also His manifestation as personal God (Īśvara), as matter, and as individual souls.[39]
The schools of Vedanta differ in their conception of the relation they see betweenĀtman /Jīvātman andBrahman /Īśvara:[40]
According to Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism),Ātman is identical withBrahman and there is no difference.[41]
According to Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism),Jīvātman is different fromĪśvara, though eternally connected with Him as His mode.[42] The oneness of the Supreme Reality is understood in the sense of an organic unity (vishistaikya).Brahman/Īśvara alone, as organically related to allJīvātman and the material universe is the one Ultimate Reality.[43]
According to Dvaita (dualism), theJīvātman is totally and always different fromBrahman /Īśvara.[44]
According to Shuddhadvaita (pure non-dualism), theJīvātman andBrahman are identical; both, along with the changing empirically observed universe beingKrishna.[45]
Epistemology in Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. Advaita and some other Vedanta schools recognize six epistemic means.
Pramāṇa (Sanskrit: प्रमाण) literally means "proof", "that which is the means of valid knowledge".[46] It refers toepistemology in Indian philosophies, and encompasses the study of reliable and valid means by which human beings gain accurate, true knowledge.[47] The focus ofPramana is the manner in which correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows or does not know, and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.[48] Ancient and medieval Indian texts identify six[e]pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and truths:[49]
Śabda (scriptural testimony/ verbal testimony of past or present reliable experts).
The different schools of Vedanta have historically disagreed as to which of the six are epistemologically valid. For example, while Advaita Vedanta accepts all sixpramanas,[50] Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita accept only threepramanas (perception, inference and testimony).[51]
Advaita considersPratyakṣa (perception) as the most reliable source of knowledge, andŚabda, the scriptural evidence, is considered secondary except for matters related to Brahman, where it is the only evidence.[52][f] In Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita,Śabda, the scriptural testimony, is considered the most authentic means of knowledge instead.[53]
All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory ofSatkāryavāda,[54] which means that the effect is pre-existent in the cause. But there are two different views on the status of the "effect", that is, the world. Most schools of Vedanta, as well as Samkhya, supportParinamavada, the idea that the world is a real transformation (parinama) of Brahman.[55] According toNicholson (2010, p. 27), "theBrahma Sutras espouse the realist Parinamavada position, which appears to have been the view most common among early Vedantins". In contrast to Badarayana, post-Shankara Advaita Vedantists hold a different view,Vivartavada, which says that the effect, the world, is merely an unreal (vivarta) transformation of its cause, Brahman.[g]
TheUpanishads present an associative philosophical inquiry in the form of identifying various doctrines and then presenting arguments for or against them. They form the basic texts and Vedanta interprets them through polemical philosophicalexegesis to defend the point of view of their specificsampradaya.[56][57] Varying interpretations of theUpanishads and their synthesis, theBrahma Sutras, led to the development of different schools of Vedanta over time.
Gavin Flood suggests that although Advaita Vedanta is the most well-known school of Vedanta and is sometimes wrongly perceived as the sole representation of Vedantic thought,[1] with Shankara being a follower of Shaivism,[58] the true essence of Vedanta lies within the Vaisnava tradition and can be considered a discourse within the broad framework of Vaisnavism.[58] Four Vaishnava sampradays are considered to be of special significance based on the teachings of Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Nimbarka.[3]
The number of classical Vedanta schools varies among scholars, but typically includes three to six or seven:[4][40][59][12][60][a][h][i]
Bhedābheda means "difference and non-difference" and is more a tradition than a school of Vedanta. The schools of this tradition emphasize that the individual self (Jīvatman) is both different and not different fromBrahman.[54] Notable figures in this school are Bhartriprapancha,Nimbārka andSrinivasa (7th century)[62][63] who founded theDvaitadvaita school,Bhāskara (8th–9th century), Ramanuja's teacherYādavaprakāśa,[67]Chaitanya (1486–1534) who founded theAchintya Bheda Abheda school, andVijñānabhikṣu (16th century).[68][j]
Nimbārka (7th century)[62][63] sometimes identified withBhāskara,[69] andSrinivasa propoundedDvaitādvaita.[70]Brahman (God), souls(chit) and matter or the universe(achit) are considered as three equally real and co-eternal realities.Brahman is the controller(niyanta), the soul is the enjoyer(bhokta), and the material universe is the object enjoyed(bhogya). The Brahman isKrishna, the ultimate cause who is omniscient, omnipotent, all-pervading Being. He is theefficient cause of the universe because, as Lord ofKarma and internal ruler of souls, He brings about creation so that the individual souls can reap the consequences of theirkarma. God is considered to be thematerial cause of the universe because creation was a manifestation of His powers of soul(chit) and matter(achit); creation is a transformation(parinama) of God's powers. He can be realized only through a constant effort to merge oneself with His nature through meditation and devotion.[70]
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486 – 1533) was the prime exponent ofAchintya-Bheda-Abheda.[71] InSanskritachintya means 'inconceivable'.[72]Achintya-Bheda-Abheda represents the philosophy of "inconceivable difference in non-difference",[73] in relation to the non-dual reality ofBrahman-Atman which it calls (Krishna),svayam bhagavan.[74] The notion of "inconceivability" (acintyatva) is used to reconcile apparently contradictory notions in Upanishadic teachings. This school asserts thatKrishna isBhagavan of thebhakti yogins, theBrahman of thejnana yogins, and has a divine potency that is inconceivable. He is all-pervading and thus in all parts of the universe (non-difference), yet he is inconceivably more (difference). This school is at the foundation of theGaudiya Vaishnava religious tradition.[73] TheISKCON or the Hare Krishnas also affiliate to this school of Vedanta Philosophy.
Advaita Vedanta (IASTAdvaita Vedānta;Sanskrit: (अद्वैत वेदान्त), propounded byGaudapada (7th century) andAdi Shankara (9th century), but popularized byVidyaranya (14th century) and 19th-20th centuryneo-Vedantins, espouses non-dualism and monism.Brahman is held to be the sole unchanging metaphysical reality and identical to the individualAtman.[38] The physical world, on the other hand, is always-changing empiricalMaya.[75][k] The absolute and infiniteAtman-Brahman is realized by a process of negating everything relative, finite, empirical and changing.[76]
The school accepts no duality, no limited individual souls (Atman /Jīvatman), and no separate unlimited cosmic soul. All souls and their existence across space and time are considered to be the same oneness.[77] Spiritual liberation inAdvaita is the full comprehension and realization of oneness, that one's unchangingAtman (soul) is the same as theAtman in everyone else, as well as being identical toBrahman.[78]
Vishishtadvaita, propounded byRamanuja (11–12th century), asserts thatJīvatman (human souls) andBrahman (asVishnu) are different, a difference that is never transcended.[79][80] With this qualification, Ramanuja also affirmed monism by saying that there is unity of all souls and that the individual soul has the potential to realize identity with theBrahman.[81]Vishishtadvaita is a qualified non-dualistic school of Vedanta and like Advaita, begins by assuming that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation.[82] On the relation between theBrahman and the world of matter (Prakriti),Vishishtadvaita states both are two different absolutes, both metaphysically true and real, neither is false or illusive, and thatsagunaBrahman with attributes is also real.[83] Ramanuja states that God, like man, has both soul and body, and the world of matter is the glory of God's body.[84] The path toBrahman (Vishnu), according to Ramanuja, is devotion to godliness and constant remembrance of the beauty and love of the personal god (bhakti ofsagunaBrahman).[85]
Tattvavada, propounded byMadhvacharya (13th century), is based on the premise of realism or realistic point of view. The term Dvaita, which means dualism, was later applied to Madhvacharya's philosophy.Atman (soul) andBrahman (asVishnu) are understood as two completely different entities.[86]Brahman is the creator of the universe, perfect in knowledge, perfect in knowing, perfect in its power, and distinct from souls, distinct from matter.[87][l] InDvaita Vedanta, an individual soul must feel attraction, love, attachment and complete devotional surrender toVishnu for salvation, and it is only His grace that leads to redemption and salvation.[90] Madhva believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned, a view not found inAdvaita andVishishtadvaita Vedanta.[91] While theVishishtadvaita Vedanta asserted "qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism of souls", Madhva asserted both "qualitative and quantitative pluralism of souls".[92]
Shuddhadvaita (pure non-dualism), propounded byVallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE), states that the entire universe is real and is subtlyBrahman only in the form ofKrishna.[45] Vallabhacharya agreed with Advaita Vedanta'sontology, but emphasized thatprakriti (empirical world, body) is not separate from theBrahman, but just another manifestation of the latter.[45] Everything, everyone, everywhere – soul and body, living and non-living,jīva and matter – is the eternalKrishna.[45] The way toKrishna, in this school, isbhakti. Vallabha opposed renunciation of monisticsannyasa as ineffective and advocates the path of devotion (bhakti) rather than knowledge (jnana). The goal ofbhakti is to turn away from ego, self-centered-ness and deception, and to turn towards the eternalKrishna in everything continually offering freedom fromsamsara.[45]
The history of Vedanta can be divided into two periods: one prior to the composition of theBrahma Sutras and the other encompassing the schools that developed after theBrahma Sutras were written. Until the 11th century, Vedanta was a peripheral school of thought.[93]
Little is known[94] of schools of Vedanta existing before the composition of theBrahma Sutras (first composition c. 2nd cent. BCE, final redaction 400–450 CE).[95][61][m] It is clear that Badarayana, the writer ofBrahma Sutras, was not the first person to systematize the teachings of theUpanishads, as he quotes six Vedantic teachers before him – Ashmarathya, Badari, Audulomi, Kashakrtsna, Karsnajini and Atreya.[97][98] References to other early Vedanta teachers – Brahmadatta, Sundara, Pandaya, Tanka and Dravidacharya – are found in secondary literature of later periods.[99] The works of these ancient teachers have not survived, but based on the quotes attributed to them in later literature, Sharma postulates that Ashmarathya and Audulomi wereBhedabheda scholars, Kashakrtsna and Brahmadatta wereAdvaita scholars, while Tanka and Dravidacharya were either Advaita or Viśiṣṭādvaita scholars.[98]
Badarayana summarized and interpreted teachings of theUpanishads in theBrahma Sutras, also called theVedanta Sutra,[100][n] possibly "written from a Bhedābheda Vedāntic viewpoint."[54] Badarayana summarized the teachings of the classical Upanishads[101][102][o] and refuted the rival philosophical schools in ancient India like thesāṃkhya system.[61] The Brahma Sutras laid the basis for the development of Vedanta philosophy.[103]
Though attributed to Badarayana, the Brahma Sutras were likely composed by multiple authors over the course of hundreds of years.[61] The estimates on when the Brahma Sutras were complete vary,[104][105] with Nakamura in 1989 and Nicholson in his 2013 review stating, that they were most likely compiled in the present form around 400–450 CE.[95][p] Isaeva suggests they were complete and in current form by 200 CE,[106] while Nakamura states that "the great part of theSutra must have been in existence much earlier than that" (800 - 500 BCE).[105]
The book is composed of four chapters, each divided into four-quarters or sections.[14] These sutras attempt to synthesize the diverse teachings of the Upanishads. However, the cryptic nature of aphorisms of theBrahma Sutras have required exegetical commentaries.[107] These commentaries have resulted in the formation of numerous Vedanta schools, each interpreting the texts in its own way and producing its own commentary.[108]
Between theBrahma Sutras and Adi Shankara (5th–8th centuries)
Little with specificity is known of the period between theBrahma Sutras (5th century CE) and Adi Shankara (8th century CE).[94][66] Only two writings of this period have survived: theVākyapadīya, written byBhartṛhari (second half 5th century,[109]) and theKārikā written by Gaudapada (early 6th[66] or 7th century[94] CE).
Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his school in his commentaries.[110] A number of important early Vedanta thinkers have been listed in theSiddhitraya by Yamunācārya (c. 1050), theVedārthasamgraha by Rāmānuja (c. 1050–1157), and theYatīndramatadīpikā by Śrīnivāsa Dāsa.[94] At least fourteen thinkers are known to have existed between the composition of the Brahma Sutras and Shankara's lifetime.[q]
A noted scholar of this period was Bhartriprapancha. Bhartriprapancha maintained that the Brahman is one and there is unity, but that this unity has varieties. Scholars see Bhartriprapancha as an early philosopher in the line who teach the tenet ofBhedabheda.[14] Bhedābheda means "difference and non-difference" and is more a tradition than a school of Vedanta. The schools of this tradition emphasize that the individual self (Jīvatman) is both different and not different fromBrahman.[111] Notable figures in this tradition areNimbārka (7th century)[62][63] who founded theDvaitadvaita school,Bhāskara (8th–9th century), Ramanuja's teacherYādavaprakāśa,[67]Chaitanya (1486–1534) who founded theAchintya Bheda Abheda school, andVijñānabhikṣu (16th century).[68][r]
Gaudapada, Adi Shankara (Advaita Vedanta) (6th–9th centuries)
Gaudapada (c. 6th century CE),[112] was the teacher or a more distant predecessor ofGovindapada,[113] the teacher of Adi Shankara. Shankara is widely considered as the apostle ofAdvaita Vedanta.[40] Gaudapada's treatise, theKārikā – also known as theMāṇḍukya Kārikā or theĀgama Śāstra[114] – is the earliest surviving complete text on Advaita Vedanta.[s]
Gaudapada'sKārikā relied on theMandukya,Brihadaranyaka andChhandogyaUpanishads.[118] In theKārikā, Advaita (non-dualism) is established on rational grounds (upapatti) independent of scriptural revelation; its arguments are devoid of all religious, mystical or scholastic elements. Scholars are divided on a possible influence ofBuddhism on Gaudapada's philosophy.[t] The fact that Shankara, in addition to theBrahma Sutras, the principalUpanishads and theBhagvad Gita, wrote an independent commentary on theKārikā proves its importance inVedāntic literature.[119]
Adi Shankara (c.800-c.850), elaborated on Gaudapada's work and more ancient scholarship to write detailed commentaries on the Prasthanatrayi and theKārikā. The Mandukya Upanishad and theKārikā have been described by Shankara as containing "the epitome of the substance of the import of Vedanta".[119] It was Shankara who integrated Gaudapada work with the ancientBrahma Sutras, "and give it alocus classicus" alongside the realistic strain of theBrahma Sutras.[120][u]
While he is often revered as the most importantIndian philosopher, the historical influence of his works on Hindu intellectual thought has been questioned.[121][122][123] The historical Shankara probably was a relatively unknown Vaishnavite,[b] and reliable information on Shankara's actual life is scant.[124] His true impact lies in his "iconic representation ofHindu religion andculture," despite the fact that mostHindus do not adhere to Advaita Vedanta.[125]
A noted contemporary of Shankara wasMaṇḍana Miśra, who regardedMimamsa and Vedanta as forming a single system and advocated their combination known asKarma-jnana-samuchchaya-vada.[126][v] The treatise on the differences between the Vedanta school and the Mimamsa school was a contribution of Adi Shankara. Advaita Vedanta rejects rituals in favor ofrenunciation, for example.[127]
Bhāskara (8th–9th century) also taught Bhedabheda. In postulatingUpadhika, he considers both identity and difference to be equally real. As the causal principle,Brahman is considered non-dual and formless pure being and intelligence.[128] The sameBrahman, manifest as events, becomes the world of plurality.Jīva isBrahman limited by the mind. Matter and its limitations are considered real, not a manifestation of ignorance. Bhaskara advocatedbhakti asdhyana (meditation) directed toward the transcendentalBrahman. He refuted the idea ofMaya and denied the possibility of liberation in bodily existence.[129]
TheBhakti movement of late medieval Hinduism started in the 7th century, but rapidly expanded after the 12th century.[130] It was supported by the Puranic literature such as theBhagavata Purana, poetic works, as well as many scholarlybhasyas andsamhitas.[131][132][133]
In North and Eastern India, Vaishnavism gave rise to various late Medieval movements:Ramananda in the 14th century,Sankaradeva in the 15th andVallabha andChaitanya in the 16th century.
Rāmānuja (1017–1137 CE) was the most influential philosopher in theViśiṣṭādvaita tradition. As the philosophical architect of Vishishtadvaita, he taught qualifiednon-dualism.[137] Ramanuja's teacher, Yadava Prakasha, followed the Advaita monastic tradition. Tradition has it that Ramanuja disagreed with Yadava and Advaita Vedanta, and instead followedNathamuni andYāmuna. Ramanuja reconciled thePrasthanatrayi with the theism and philosophy of the VaishnavaAlvars poet-saints.[138] Ramanuja wrote a number of influential texts, such as abhasya on theBrahma Sutras and theBhagavad Gita, all in Sanskrit.[139]
Ramanuja presented theepistemological andsoteriological importance of bhakti, or the devotion to a personal God (Vishnu in Ramanuja's case) as a means to spiritual liberation. His theories assert that there exists a plurality and distinction between Atman (souls) and Brahman (metaphysical, ultimate reality), while he also affirmed that there is unity of all souls and that the individual soul has the potential to realize identity with the Brahman.[81] Vishishtadvaiata provides the philosophical basis ofSri Vaishnavism.[140]
Ramanuja was influential in integratingBhakti, the devotional worship, into Vedanta premises.[141]
Madhva (Tattvavada or Dvaita Vedanta)(13th–14th centuries)
Tattvavada[w] orDvaita Vedanta was propounded byMadhvacharya (1238–1317 CE).[x] He presented the opposite interpretation of Shankara in his Dvaita, or dualistic system.[144] In contrast to Shankara's non-dualism and Ramanuja's qualified non-dualism, he championed unqualified dualism. Madhva wrote commentaries on the chiefUpanishads, theBhagavad Gita and theBrahma Sutra.[145]
Madhva started his Vedic studies at age seven, joined an Advaita Vedanta monastery in Dwarka (Gujarat),[146] studied underguru Achyutrapreksha,[147] frequently disagreed with him, left the Advaita monastery, and founded Dvaita.[148] Madhva and his followers Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha, were critical of all competing Hindu philosophies, Jainism and Buddhism,[149] but particularly intense in their criticism of Advaita Vedanta and Adi Shankara.[150]
Dvaita Vedanta is theistic and it identifies Brahman with Narayana, or more specifically Vishnu, in a manner similar to Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. But it is more explicitly pluralistic.[151] Madhva's emphasis for difference between soul and Brahman was so pronounced that he taught there were differences (1) between material things; (2) between material things and souls; (3) between material things and God; (4) between souls; and (5) between souls and God.[152] He also advocated for a difference in degrees in the possession of knowledge. He also advocated for differences in the enjoyment of bliss even in the case of liberated souls, a doctrine found in no other system of Indian philosophy.[151]
TheSwaminarayan Darshana, which is rooted in Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita,[154][155][156][y] was founded in 1801 bySwaminarayan (1781-1830 CE), and is contemporarily most notably propagated byBAPS.[157] It asserts that Parabrahman (Purushottam, Narayana) and Aksharbrahman are two distinct eternal realities. Adherents believe that they can achieve moksha (liberation) by becoming aksharrup (or brahmarup), that is, by attaining qualities similar to Akshar (or Aksharbrahman) and worshipping Purushottam (or Parabrahman; the supreme living entity; God).[158][159]
Due to the commentarial work ofBhadreshdas Swami, the Akshar-Purushottam teachings were recognized as a distinct school of Vedanta by theShri Kashi Vidvat Parishad in 2017[160][161] and by members of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference in 2018.[160][z][162] Swami Paramtattvadas describes the Akshar-Purushottam teachings as "a distinct school of thought within the larger expanse of classical Vedanta,"[163] presenting the Akshar-Purushottam teachings as a seventh school of Vedanta.[164]
Neo-Vedanta, variously called as "Hindu modernism", "neo-Hinduism", and "neo-Advaita", is a term that denotes some novel interpretations ofHinduism that developed in the 19th century,[165] presumably as a reaction to the colonial British rule.[166]King (2002, pp. 129–135) writes that these notions accorded the Hindu nationalists an opportunity to attempt the construction of a nationalist ideology to help unite the Hindus to fight colonial oppression. Westernorientalists, in their search for its "essence", attempted to formulate a notion of "Hinduism" based on a single interpretation of Vedanta as a unified body of religious praxis.[167] This was contra-factual as, historically, Hinduism and Vedanta had always accepted a diversity of traditions.King (1999, pp. 133–136) asserts that the neo-Vedantic theory of "overarching tolerance and acceptance" was used by the Hindu reformers, together with the ideas ofUniversalism andPerennialism, to challenge the polemic dogmatism of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic missionaries against the Hindus.
The neo-Vedantins argued that the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy were perspectives on a single truth, all valid and complementary to each other.[168]Halbfass (2007, p. 307) sees these interpretations as incorporating western ideas[169] into traditional systems, especiallyAdvaita Vedanta.[170] It is the modern form of Advaita Vedanta, statesKing (1999, p. 135), the neo-Vedantists subsumed the Buddhist philosophies as part of the Vedanta tradition[aa] and then argued that all the world religions are same "non-dualistic position as the philosophia perennis", ignoring the differences within and outside of Hinduism.[172] According toGier (2000, p. 140), neo-Vedanta is Advaita Vedanta which accepts universal realism:
Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Aurobindo have been labeled neo-Vedantists (the latter called it realistic Advaita), a view of Vedanta that rejects the Advaitins' idea that the world is illusory. As Aurobindo phrased it, philosophers need to move from 'universal illusionism' to 'universal realism', in the strict philosophical sense of assuming the world to be fully real.
Nicholson (2010, p. 2) writes that the attempts at integration which came to be known as neo-Vedanta were evident as early as between the 12th and the 16th century−
... certain thinkers began to treat as a single whole the diverse philosophical teachings of the Upanishads, epics, Puranas, and the schools known retrospectively as the "six systems" (saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy.[ab]
Matilal criticizes Neo-Hinduism as an oddity developed by West-inspired Western Indologists and attributes it to the flawed Western perception of Hinduism in modern India. In his scathing criticism of this school of reasoning,Matilal (2002, pp. 403–404) says:
The so-called 'traditional' outlook is in fact a construction. Indian history shows that the tradition itself was self-conscious and critical of itself, sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly. It was never free from internal tensions due to the inequalities that persisted in a hierarchical society, nor was it without confrontation and challenge throughout its history. Hence Gandhi, Vivekananda and Tagore were not simply 'transplants from Western culture, products arising solely from confrontation with the west....It is rather odd that, although the early Indologists' romantic dream of discovering a pure (and probably primitive, according to some) form of Hinduism (or Buddhism as the case may be) now stands discredited in many quarters; concepts like neo-Hinduism are still bandied about as substantial ideas or faultless explanation tools by the Western 'analytic' historians as well as the West-inspired historians of India.
According toNakamura (2004, p. 3), the Vedanta school has had a historic and central influence on Hinduism:
The prevalence of Vedanta thought is found not only in philosophical writings but also in various forms of (Hindu) literature, such as the epics, lyric poetry, drama and so forth. ... the Hindu religious sects, the common faith of the Indian populace, looked to Vedanta philosophy for the theoretical foundations for their theology. The influence of Vedanta is prominent in the sacred literatures of Hinduism, such as the various Puranas, Samhitas, Agamas and Tantras ...[94]
Frithjof Schuon summarizes the influence of Vedanta on Hinduism as follows:
The Vedanta contained in the Upanishads, then formulated in theBrahma Sutra, and finally commented and explained by Shankara, is an invaluable key for discovering the deepest meaning of all the religious doctrines and for realizing that theSanatana Dharma secretly penetrates all the forms of traditional spirituality.[180]
... the most influential school of theology in India has been Vedanta, exerting enormous influence on all religious traditions and becoming the central ideology of the Hindu renaissance in the nineteenth century. It has become the philosophical paradigm of Hinduism "par excellence".[13]
Vedanta, adopting ideas from otherorthodox (āstika) schools, became the most prominent school ofHinduism.[14][181] Vedanta traditions led to the development of many traditions in Hinduism.[13][182]Sri Vaishnavism of south and southeastern India is based on Ramanuja'sVishishtadvaita Vedanta.[183] Ramananda led to theVaishnav Bhakti Movement in north, east, central and west India. This movement draws its philosophical and theistic basis fromVishishtadvaita. A large number of devotionalVaishnavism traditions of east India, north India (particularly the Braj region), west and central India are based on various sub-schools ofBhedabheda Vedanta.[54]Advaita Vedanta influencedKrishna Vaishnavism in the northeastern state ofAssam.[184] The Madhva school of Vaishnavism found in coastalKarnataka is based onDvaita Vedanta.[150]
Āgamas, the classical literature ofShaivism, though independent in origin, show Vedanta association and premises.[185] Of the 92Āgamas, ten are (dvaita) texts, eighteen (bhedabheda), and sixty-four (advaita) texts.[186] While theBhairava Shastras are monistic,Shiva Shastras are dualistic.[187]Isaeva (1995, pp. 134–135) finds the link between Gaudapada'sAdvaita Vedanta andKashmir Shaivism evident and natural.Tirumular, the TamilShaiva Siddhanta scholar, credited with creating "Vedanta–Siddhanta" (Advaita Vedanta and Shaiva Siddhanta synthesis), stated, "becomingShiva is the goal of Vedanta andSiddhanta; all other goals are secondary to it and are vain."[188]
Shaktism, or traditions where a goddess is considered identical toBrahman, has similarly flowered from a syncretism of the monist premises ofAdvaita Vedanta and dualism premises ofSamkhya–Yoga school of Hindu philosophy, sometimes referred to asShaktadavaitavada (literally, the path of nondualisticShakti).[189]
An exchange of ideas has been taking place between the western world and Asia since the late 18th century as a result of colonization of parts of Asia by Western powers. This also influenced western religiosity. The first translation ofUpanishads, published in two parts in 1801 and 1802, significantly influencedArthur Schopenhauer, who called them the consolation of his life.[190] He drew explicit parallels between his philosophy, as set out inThe World as Will and Representation,[191] and that of the Vedanta philosophy as described in the work ofSir William Jones.[192] Early translations also appeared in other European languages.[193] Influenced by Śaṅkara's concepts ofBrahman (God) andmāyā (illusion),Lucian Blaga often used the conceptsmarele anonim (the Great Anonymous) andcenzura transcendentă (the transcendental censorship) in his philosophy.[194]
Paul Deussen, influenced by Schopenhauer, elevated Indian philosophy, particularly Advaita Vedanta, within German idealism and Indology. His works, including those on history of philosophy and Upanishad translations, portrayed Vedanta as the core of Indian thought, shaping 20th century scholarship. Deussen upheld Advaita as the original truth and acknowledged variations like Visistadvaita and Dvaita. He proposed a six-stage regression model tracing philosophy's decline from monistic idealism to realism and theism, paralleling Indian and Greek traditions.[195]
German SanskritistTheodore Goldstücker was among the early scholars to notice similarities between the religious conceptions of the Vedanta and those of the Dutch Jewish philosopherBaruch Spinoza, writing that Spinoza's thought was
... so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus, did his biography not satisfy us that he was wholly unacquainted with their doctrines [...] comparing the fundamental ideas of both we should have no difficulty in proving that, had Spinoza been a Hindu, his system would in all probability mark a last phase of the Vedanta philosophy.[196]
Max Müller noted the striking similarities between Vedanta and the system of Spinoza, saying,
The Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza's 'Substantia'."[197]
As to Spinoza's Deity –natura naturans – conceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the same Deity – asnatura naturata or as conceived in the endless series of modifications or correlations, the direct outflowing results from the properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic Deity pure and simple.[198]
^abEncyclopedia Britannica,Vedanta: "The main schools are: Shankara’s unqualified nondualism (shuddhadvaita); Ramanuja’s qualified nondualism (vishishtadvaita); Madhva’s dualism (dvaita); Bhaskara’s doctrine of identity and difference (bhedabheda); and the schools of Nimbarka and Vallabha, which assert both identity and difference though with different emphasis on either of the two aspects."
Mayeda 1992, p. 4: "But his doctrine is far removed from Saivism and Saktism. It can be ascertained from his works that he had some faith in, or was favorable to, Vaishnavism.[13]" P.8 note 13 refers to Nakamura,Vedanta Tetsugaku no Hatten p.531, and Paul Hacker (1965),Relations of early Advaitins to Vaishnavism.
Clark 2006, p. 148: "Sankara, despite being projected as an incarnation of Siva in the hagiographies, was almost certainly a vaisnava, as were his immediate disciples."
Clark 2006, p. 167: "... it may be that he is best described as a refomed Pancaratrin or Bhagavata, Sankara-Bhagavat or Sankara-Bhagavatpada indeed being one of the names he uses to describe himself."
Clark 2006, p. 169: "It is apparent that Sankara was a vaisnava who seems to have been significantly informed by Pancaratra—as were Ramanuja and Madhva—yet Sankara’s hagiographers project him as an ‘orthodox’ (Vedic) saiva."
Nelson 2007, p. 313: "Indeed, as Hacker has shown, there is good evidence that Shankara and his early followers came from strong Vaishnava backgrounds."
^Historically, Vedanta has been called by various names. The early names were the Upanishadic ones (Aupanisada), the doctrine of the end of theVedas (Vedanta-vada), the doctrine ofBrahman (Brahma-vada), and the doctrine thatBrahma is the cause (Brahma-karana-vada).[21]
^TheUpanishads were many in number and developed in the different schools at different 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).[27] All major commentators have considered twelve to thirteen oldest of these texts as the PrincipalUpanishads and as the foundation of Vedanta.
^A few Indian scholars such as Vedvyasa discuss ten; Krtakoti discusses eight; six is most widely accepted: seeNicholson (2010, pp. 149–150)
^AnantanandRambachan (1991, pp. xii–xiii) states, "According to these [widely represented contemporary] studies, Shankara only accorded a provisional validity to the knowledge gained by inquiry into the words of theŚruti (Vedas) and did not see the latter as the unique source (pramana) ofBrahmajnana. The affirmations of the Śruti, it is argued, need to be verified and confirmed by the knowledge gained through direct experience (anubhava) and the authority of the Śruti, therefore, is only secondary." SengakuMayeda (2006, pp. 46–47) concurs, adding Shankara maintained the need for objectivity in the process of gaining knowledge (vastutantra), and considered subjective opinions (purushatantra) and injunctions in Śruti (codanatantra) as secondary. Mayeda cites Shankara's explicit statements emphasizing epistemology (pramana–janya) in section 1.18.133 of Upadesasahasri and section 1.1.4 of Brahmasutra–bhasya.
^Nicholson (2010, p. 27) writes of Advaita Vedantin position of cause and effect - Although Brahman seems to undergo a transformation, in fact no real change takes place. The myriad of beings are essentially unreal, as the only real being is Brahman, that ultimate reality which is unborn, unchanging, and entirely without parts.
^Proponents of other Vedantic schools continue to write and develop their ideas as well, although their works are not widely known outside of smaller circles of followers inIndia.
^According to Nakamura and Dasgupta, theBrahmasutras reflect aBhedabheda point of view,[61] the most influential tradition of Vedanta before Shankara. Numerous Indologists, including Surendranath Dasgupta, Paul hacker, Hajime Nakamura, and Mysore Hiriyanna, have describedBhedabheda as the most influential school of Vedanta before Shankara.[61]
^O'Flaherty (1986, p. 119) says "that to say that the universe is an illusion (māyā) is not to say that it is unreal; it is to say, instead, that it is not what it seems to be, that it is something constantly being made.Maya not only deceives people about the things they think they know; more basically, it limits their knowledge."
^The concept ofBrahman inDvaita Vedanta is so similar to the monotheistic eternal God, that some early colonial–eraIndologists such asGeorge Abraham Grierson suggested Madhva was influenced by earlyChristians who migrated to India,[88] but later scholarship has rejected this theory.[89]
^Nicholson (2010, p. 26) considers theBrahma Sutras as a group of sutras composed by multiple authors over the course of hundreds of years. The precise date is disputed.[96]Nicholson (2010, p. 26) estimates that the book was composed in its current form between 400 and 450 CE. The reference shows BCE, but it's a typo in Nicholson's book
^The Vedanta–sūtra are known by a variety of names, including (1) Brahma–sūtra, (2) Śārīraka–sutra, (3) Bādarāyaṇa–sūtra and (4) Uttara–mīmāṁsā.
^Estimates of the date of Bādarāyana's lifetime differ.Pandey 2000, p. 4
^Nicholson 2013, p. 26 Quote: "From a historical perspective, the Brahmasutras are best understood as a group of sutras composed by multiple authors over the course of hundreds of years, most likely composed in its current form between 400 and 450 BCE." This dating has a typo in Nicholson's book, it should be read "between 400 and 450 CE"
^According to Nakamura and Dasgupta, theBrahmasutras reflect aBhedabheda point of view,[61] the most influential tradition of Vedanta before Shankara. Numerous Indologists, including Surendranath Dasgupta, Paul hacker, Hajime Nakamura, and Mysore Hiriyanna, have describedBhedabheda as the most influential school of Vedanta before Shankara.[61]
^There is ample evidence, however, to suggest that Advaita was a thriving tradition by the start of the common era or even before that. Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his Sampradaya.[110] Scholarship since 1950 suggests that almost allSannyasa Upanishads have a strong Advaita Vedanta outlook.[115] Six Sannyasa Upanishads – Aruni, Kundika, Kathashruti, Paramahamsa, Jabala and Brahma – were composed before the 3rd Century CE, likely in the centuries before or after the start of the common era; the Asrama Upanishad is dated to the 3rd Century.[116] The strong Advaita Vedanta views in these ancient Sannyasa Upanishads may be, statesPatrick Olivelle, because major Hindu monasteries of this period belonged to the Advaita Vedanta tradition.[117]
^Scholars likeRaju (1992, p. 177), following the lead of earlier scholars like Sengupta,[119] believe that Gaudapada co-opted the Buddhist doctrine that ultimate reality is pure consciousness(vijñapti-mātra).Raju (1992, pp. 177–178) states, "Gaudapada wove [both doctrines] into a philosophy of the Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara."Nikhilananda (2008, pp. 203–206) states that the whole purpose of Gaudapada was to present and demonstrate the ultimate reality of Atman, an idea denied byBuddhism. According toMurti (1955, pp. 114–115), Gaudapada's doctrines are unlike Buddhism. Gaudapada's influential text consists of four chapters: Chapters One, Two, and Three are entirely Vedantin and founded on the Upanishads, with little Buddhist flavor. Chapter Four uses Buddhist terminology and incorporates Buddhist doctrines but Vedanta scholars who followed Gaudapada through the 17th century, state that both Murti and Richard King never referenced nor used Chapter Four, they only quote from the first three.[65] While there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different, statesMurti (1955, pp. 114–115)
^Nicholson (2010, p. 27) writes: "TheBrahmasutras themselves espouse the realist Parinamavada position, which appears to have been the view most common among early Vedantins."
^According to Mishra, thesutras, beginning with the first sutra of Jaimini and ending with the last sutra of Badarayana, form one compactshastra.[126]
^Madhvacharya gave his philosophy the nameTattvavada (realistic point of view or realism), but later after few centuries it was popularised asDvaita Vedanta (dualism).
^Many sources date him to 1238–1317 period,[142] but some place him over 1199–1278 CE.[143]
^Vishishtadvaita roots: * Supreme Court of India, 1966 AIR 1119, 1966 SCR (3) 242: "Philosophically, Swaminarayan was a follower of Ramanuja"[156] * Hanna H. Kim: "The philosophical foundation for Swaminarayan devotionalism is the viśiṣṭādvaita, or qualified non-dualism, of Rāmānuja (1017–1137 ce)."[154] * See alsoSimilarities with Ramanuja.
^"Professor Ashok Aklujkar said [...] Just as the Kashi Vidvat Parishad acknowledged Swaminarayan Bhagwan's Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as a distinct darshan in the Vedanta tradition, we are honored to do the same from the platform of the World Sanskrit Conference [...] Professor George Cardona [said] "This is a very important classical Sanskrit commentary that very clearly and effectively explains that Akshar is distinct from Purushottam."[160]
^Vivekananda, clarifies Richard King, stated, "I am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am"; but thereafter Vivekananda explained that "he cannot accept the Buddhist rejection of a self, but nevertheless honors the Buddha's compassion and attitude towards others".[171]
^The tendency of "a blurring of philosophical distinctions" has also been noted byMikel Burley.[176] Lorenzen locates the origins of a distinct Hindu identity in the interaction between Muslims and Hindus,[177] and a process of "mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim other",[178] which started well before 1800.[179]
Ādidevānanda, Swami (2014).Śrī Rāmānuja GĪTĀ Bhāșya, with Text and English translation. Chennai: Sri Ramakrishna Math, Mylapore, Chennai.ISBN978-81-7823-518-9.
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.
Beck, Guy L. (2012),Alternative Krishnas: Regional and Vernacular Variations on a Hindu Deity, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0-7914-8341-1
Brooks, Douglas Renfrew (1990).The Secret of the Three Cities. State University of Chicago Press.ISBN978-0-226-07569-3.
Bryant, Edwin (2007).Krishna : A Sourcebook. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-514892-3.
Burley, Mikel (2007).Classical Samkhya and Yoga: An Indian Metaphysics of Experience. Taylor & Francis.
Carman, John B. (1994).Majesty and Meekness: A Comparative Study of Contrast and Harmony in the Concept of God. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.ISBN978-0-8028-0693-2.
Carman, John B. (1974).The Theology of Rāmānuja: An essay in inter-religious understanding. Yale University Press.ISBN978-0-300-01521-8.
Chatterjee, Satischandra; Dutta, Shirendramohan (2007) [1939].An Introduction to Indian Philosophy (Reprint ed.). Rupa Publications India.ISBN978-81-291-1195-1.
Dandekar, R. (1987),"Vedanta",MacMillan Encyclopedia of religion
Das, A.C. (1952). "Brahman and Māyā in Advaita Metaphysics".Philosophy East and West.2 (2):144–154.doi:10.2307/1397304.JSTOR1397304.
Dasgupta, Surendranath (2012) [1922].A History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. 1, Philosophy of Buddhist, Jaina and Six Systems of indian thought (Reprint, 7th ed.). Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-81-208-0412-8.
Davis, Richard (2014).Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshipping Siva in Medieval India. Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-60308-7.
Grimes, John A. (2006).A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English. State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0-7914-3067-5.
Halbfass, Wilhelm (2007). "Research and reflection: Responses to my respondents. V. Developments and attitudes in Neo-Hinduism; Indian religion, past and present (Responses to Chapters 4 and 5)". In Franco, Eli; Preisendanz, Karin (eds.).Beyond Orientalism: the work of Wilhelm Halbfass and its impact on Indian and cross-cultural studies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-81-208-3110-0.
Hawley, John Stratton (2015).A Storm of Songs: India and the Idea of the Bhakti Movement. Harvard University Press.ISBN978-0-674-18746-7.
Isaeva, Natalia (1993).Shankara and Indian Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press (SUNY).ISBN978-0-7914-1281-7. Some editions spell the author Isayeva.
Isaeva, N.V. (1995).From Early Vedanta to Kashmir Shaivism: Gaudapada, Bhartrhari, and Abhinavagupta. State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0-7914-2449-0.
Iţu, Mircia (2007). "Marele Anonim şi cenzura transcendentă la Blaga. Brahman şi māyā la Śaṅkara" [The Great Anonymous and the transcendent censorship at Blaga. Brahman and māyā at Śaṅkara].Caiete Critice (in Romanian).6–7 (236–237). Bucharest:75–83.ISSN1220-6350..
Jackson, W.J. (1992), "A Life Becomes a Legend: Sri Tyagaraja as Exemplar",Journal of the American Academy of Religion,60 (4):717–736,doi:10.1093/jaarel/lx.4.717,JSTOR1465591
Jackson, W.J. (1991),Tyagaraja: Life and Lyrics, Oxford University Press, USA
Lipner, Julius J. (1986).The Face of Truth: A Study of Meaning and Metaphysics in the Vedantic Theology of Ramanuja. State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0-88706-038-0.
Maharaj, Ayon (2020).The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Vedanta. Bloomsbury.
Mahony, William (1997).The Artful Universe: An Introduction to the Vedic Religious Imagination. State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0-7914-3580-9.
Malkovsky, B. (2001),The Role of Divine Grace in the Soteriology of Śaṁkarācārya, BRILL
Nakamura, Hajime (1949).A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy. ,[full citation needed]
Nakamura, Hajime (2004) [1950].A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2 (Reprint ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-81-208-1963-4.
Nelson, Lance (2007). "Krishna in Advaita Vedanta: The Supreme Brahman in Human Form". In Bryant, Edwin (ed.).Krishna - A Sourcebook. Oxford University Press.
Pandey, S. L. (2000). "Pre-Sankara Advaita". In Chattopadhyana (ed.).History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization. Volume II Part 2: Advaita Vedanta. Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations.
Paramtattvadas, Sadhu (2017).An introduction to Swaminarayan Hindu theology. Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-1-107-15867-2.OCLC964861190.
Pasricha, Ashu (2008). "The Political Thought of C. Rajagopalachari".Encyclopaedia of Eminent Thinkers. Vol. 15. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.ISBN978-81-8069-495-0.
Puligandla, Ramakrishna (1997).Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld.
Raju, P.T. (1992) [1972].The Philosophical Traditions of India (Reprint ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Rambachan, A. (1991).Accomplishing the Accomplished: Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Sankara. University of Hawaii Press.ISBN978-0-8248-1358-1.
Schuon, Frithjof (1975). "One of the Great Lights of the World". In Mahadevan, T.M.P. (ed.).Spiritual Perspectives, Essays in Mysticism and Metaphysics. Arnold Heinemann.ISBN978-0-89253-021-2.
Sharma, Arvind (2008).Philosophy of religion and Advaita Vedanta: a comparative study in religion and reason. Pennsylvania State University Press.ISBN978-0-271-02832-3.OCLC759574543.
Sharma, Chandradhar (2009) [1960].A Critical Summary of Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-81-208-0365-7.OCLC884357528.
Sharma, Chandradhar (1994) [1960].A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy (Reprint ed.). Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-81-208-0365-7.
Sharma, Chandradhar (2007) [1996].The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy: A Study of Advaita in Buddhism, Vedānta and Kāshmīra Shaivism (Rev. ed.). Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-81-208-1312-0.OCLC190763026.
Sharma, Chandradhar (1996).The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy: A Study of Advaita in Buddhism, Vedānta and Kāshmīra Shaivism. Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-81-208-1312-0.OCLC1041414621.
Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (2000).A History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and its Literature (Reprint, 3rd ed.). Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-81-208-1575-9.OCLC53463855.
Sheridan, Daniel (1991). Timm, Jeffrey (ed.).Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia. State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0-7914-0796-7.
Sprockhoff, Joachim F. (1976).Samnyasa: Quellenstudien zur Askese im Hinduismus (in German). Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner.ISBN978-3-515-01905-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
Tola, Fernando (1989). "On the Date of Maṇḍana Miśra and Śaṅkara and Their Doctrinal Relation".Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.70 (1/4):37–46.ISSN0378-1143.JSTOR41693459.
Vasugupta (2012).Śiva Sūtras. Translated by Jaideva Singh. Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-81-208-0407-4.
Vitsaxis, Vassilis (2009).Thought and Faith: Comparative Philosophical and Religious Concepts in Ancient Greece, India, and Christianity: The Concept of Divinity: 2. Somerset Hall Press.ISBN978-1-935244-05-9.
Williams, Raymond Brady (2018),Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism, Cambridge University Press
Witz, Klaus G. (1998).The Supreme Wisdom of the Upaniśads: An Introduction. Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-81-208-1573-5.
_(square).JPG){kind=icon}
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg)
