Advaita Vedanta

"Advaita" redirects here. For other uses, see Advaita (disambiguation).

Statue of Gaudapada, the grand guru of Adi Shankara and the first historical proponent of Advaita Vedanta, also believed to be the founder of Shri Gaudapadacharya Math

Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hindu philosophy and religious practice, and one of the classic Indian paths to spiritual realization. Advaita (Sanskrit; not-two, "no second") refers to the idea that the true Self, Atman, is the same as the highest Reality, Brahman. It gives "a unifying interpretation of the whole body of Upanishads", providing scriptural authority for the postulation of the nonduality of Atman and Brahman.

Followers seek liberation/release by acquiring vidyā (knowledge) of the identity of Atman and Brahman. Liberation is believed to be attainable after long preparation and training under the guidance of a guru. It emphasizes Jivanmukta, the idea that moksha (freedom, liberation) is achievable in this life.

Advaita Vedanta is the oldest extant sub-school of Vedanta – one of six schools of orthodox Hindu philosophy. The school uses concepts such as Brahman, Atman, Maya and others that are found in major Indian religious traditions, but interprets them in its own way for its theories of moksha. Advaita Vedanta traces its roots in the oldest Upanishads, with Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahma Sutra consolidating the central premises of this tradition. The principal, though not the first, exponent of the Advaita Vedanta-interpretation was Adi Shankara in the 8th century, who systematised the works of preceding philosophers.

Advaita Vedanta, like all Indian philosophies, developed in a multi-faceted religious and philosophical landscape, in interaction with the other traditions of India such as Jainism and Buddhism. In its history, it influenced and was influenced by various traditions and texts of Hindu philosophies such as Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, other sub-schools of Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, the Puranas, the Agamas as well as social movements such as the Bhakti movement.

Advaita Vedanta is one of the most studied and most influential schools of classical Indian thought. In modern times, due to developments already set in at medieaval times with Hindu responses to Muslim rule, and further developed by neo-Vedantins and Hindu nationalists in colonial times, Advaita Vedanta has acquired a broad acceptance in Indian culture and beyond as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality. Many scholars describe it as a form of monism, some as nondualism. Advaita Vedanta texts espouse a spectrum of views from idealism, including illusionism, to realist or nearly realist positions expressed in the early works of Sankara.

Moksha – liberation through knowledge of Brahman

Main article: Moksha

Traditional Advaita Vedanta centers around the study and what it believes to be correct understanding of the sruti, revealed texts, especially the Upanishads. Correct understanding is believed to provide knowledge of the identity of atman and Brahman, which results in liberation. The main texts to be studied are the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. Correct knowledge, which destroys avidya, psychological and perceptual errors, is obtained by following the four stages of samanyasa (self-cultivation), sravana, listening to the teachings of the sages, manana, reflection on the teachings, and svādhyāya, contemplation of the truth "that art Thou".

Vidya, Svādhyāya and Anubhava

Main article: Svādhyāya

Sruti, revealed texts, and proper reasoning, are the main sources of knowledge (vidya) for Shankara and the subsequent Advaita Vedanta tradition. Correct knowledge of Brahman is thought to be acquirable by svādhyāya, study of the self and of the Vedic texts, and nididhyāsana, the study of and contemplation of the truths and non-duality.

Nididhyasana leads to anubhava, direct cognition or understanding, which establishes the truth of the sruti. Adi Shankara uses anubhava interchangeably with pratipatta, "understanding". and considers it as the "non-dual realisation gained from the scriptures". Dalal and others state that anubhava does not center around some sort of "mystical experience," but around the correct knowledge of Brahman. Stressing the meaning of anubhava as knowledge, Saraswati states that liberation comes from knowledge, not from mere experience. Nikhalananda notes that (knowledge of) Atman and Brahman can only be reached by buddhi, "reason," stating that mysticism is a kind of intuitive knowledge, while buddhi is the highest means of attaining knowledge.

Moksha - liberation

Correct knowledge of Brahman is thought to lead to liberation, by knowledge of the identity of atman and Brahman. knowledge of Brahman destroys Maya, the illusory appreances which cover the Real, Brahman. When Maya is removed, the truth of "Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah" is realised:

Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.

Liberation can be achieved while living, and is called Jivanmukta.

Identity of Atman and Brahman

See also: Jnana, Prajna, and Prajñānam Brahma

Moksha is attained by realizing the identity of Atman and Brahman, the complete understanding of one's real nature as Brahman in this life. This is frequently stated by Advaita scholars, such as Shankara, as:

I am other than name, form and action.
My nature is ever free!
I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.
I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.

— Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 11.7,

According to Potter,

1. The true Self is itself just that pure consciousness, without which nothing can be known in any way.

2. And that same true Self, pure consciousness, is not different from the ultimate world Principle, Brahman ...

3. ... Brahman (=the true Self, pure consciousness) is the only Reality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublimatable.

"Pure consciousness" is the translation of jnanam. Although the common translation of jnanam is "consciousness", the term has a broader meaning of "knowing"; "becoming acquainted with", "knowledge about anything", "awareness", "higher knowledge".

According to David Loy,

The knowledge of Brahman ... is not intuition of Brahman but itself is Brahman.

Mahavakya – The Great Sentences

Main article: Mahāvākyas

Several Mahavakyas, or "the great sentences", have Advaitic theme, that is "the inner immortal self and the great cosmic power are one and the same".

Sr. No.	Vakya	Meaning	Upanishad	Veda
1	प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म (pragñānam brahma)	Prajñānam is Brahman	Aitareya V.3	Rgveda
2.	अहं ब्रह्मास्मि (aham brahmāsmi)	I am Brahman, or I am Divine	Brhadāranyaka I.4.10	Shukla Yajurveda
3.	तत्त्वमसि (tat tvam asi)	That thou art	Chandogya VI.8.7	Samaveda
4.	अयमात्मा ब्रह्म (ayamātmā brahma)	This Atman is Brahman	Mandukya II	Atharvaveda

Stages and practices

Advaita Vedanta gives an elaborate path to attain moksha. It entails more than self-inquiry or bare insight into one's real nature.

Adi Shankara wrote a book, named Upadesasahasri to guide the practice of an Advaitin, with three prose chapters and a poetry section. One chapter is dedicated to Sravana (listening or reading the texts, discussions between the teacher and student), one chapter to Manana (thinking), and the third chapter to Nididhyasana (meditation). The text also includes a guidebook on characteristics that establish a good teacher, ethics and personal qualities necessary for the Advaita student, and steps to learn about errors and nescience and about self knowledge, epistemology and Yoga (particularly Jnana yoga and eight limbed yoga). Shankara and Suresvara explicitly recommended the practice of Yoga in a Advaitin's life.

Jnana Yoga – Four stages of practice

Main article: Jnana Yoga

Classical Advaita Vedanta emphasises the path of Jnana Yoga, a progression of study and training to attain moksha. It consists of four stages:

• Samanyasa or Sampattis, the "fourfold discipline" (sādhana-catustaya), cultivating the following four qualities:
  • Nityānitya vastu viveka (नित्यानित्य वस्तु विवेकम्) — The ability (viveka) to correctly discriminate between the real and eternal (nitya) and the substance that is apparently real, aging, changing and transitory (anitya).
  • Ihāmutrārtha phala bhoga virāga (इहाऽमुत्रार्थ फल भोगविरागम्) — The renunciation (virāga) of petty desires that distract the mind (artha phala bhoga), willing to give up everything that is an obstacle to the pursuit of truth and self-knowledge.
  • Śamādi ṣatka sampatti (शमादि षट्क सम्पत्ति) — the sixfold qualities,
    • Śama (mental tranquility, ability to focus the mind).
    • Dama (self-restraint, the virtue of temperance).
    • Uparati (dispassion, ability to be quiet and disassociated from everything; "discontinuation of religious ceremonies")
    • Titikṣa (endurance, perseverance, ability to be patient during demanding circumstances).
    • Śraddhā (the faith in teacher and Sruti texts).
    • Samādhāna (attention, intentness of mind).
  • Mumukṣutva (मुमुक्षुत्वम्) — A positive longing for freedom and wisdom, driven to the quest of knowledge and understanding.
• Sravana, listening to the teachings of the sages on the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta, studying the Vedantic texts, such as the Brahma Sutras, and discussions with the teacher;
• Manana, the stage of reflection on the teachings;
• Nididhyāsana, the stage of meditation on the truths and introspection.

Samadhi

While Shankara emphasized sravana ("hearing"), manana ("reflection") and nididhyasana ("repeated meditation"), later texts like the Dŗg-Dŗśya-Viveka (14th century) and Vedantasara (of Sadananda) (15th century) added samadhi as a means to liberation, a theme that was also emphasized by Swami Vivekananda.

Guru

Main article: Guru

Advaita Vedanta school has traditionally had a high reverence for Guru (teacher), and recommends that a competent Guru be sought in one's pursuit of spirituality. However, the Guru is not mandatory in Advaita school, states Clooney, but reading of Vedic literature and followed by reflection is. Adi Shankara, states Comans, regularly employed compound words "such as Sastracaryopadesa (instruction by way of the scriptures and the teacher) and Vedantacaryopadesa (instruction by way of the Upanishads and the teacher) to emphasize the importance of Guru". This reflects the Advaita tradition which holds a competent teacher as important and essential to gaining correct knowledge, freeing oneself from false knowledge, and to self realization.

A guru is someone more than a teacher, traditionally a reverential figure to the student, with the guru serving as a "counselor, who helps mold values, shares experiential knowledge as much as literal knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who helps in the spiritual evolution of a student. The guru, states Joel Mlecko, is more than someone who teaches specific type of knowledge, and includes in its scope someone who is also a "counselor, a sort of parent of mind and soul, who helps mold values and experiential knowledge as much as specific knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who reveals the meaning of life."

The Advaita philosopher Adi Shankara, in Chapter 1 of Upadesasahasri, states that teacher is the pilot as the student walks in the journey of knowledge, he is the raft as the student rows. The text describes the need, role and characteristics of a teacher, as follows,

When the teacher finds from signs that knowledge has not been grasped or has been wrongly grasped by the student, he should remove the causes of non-comprehension in the student. This includes the student's past and present knowledge, want of previous knowledge of what constitutes subjects of discrimination and rules of reasoning, behavior such as unrestrained conduct and speech, courting popularity, vanity of his parentage, ethical flaws that are means contrary to those causes. The teacher must enjoin means in the student that are enjoined by the Śruti and Smrti, such as avoidance of anger, Yamas consisting of Ahimsa and others, also the rules of conduct that are not inconsistent with knowledge. He [teacher] should also thoroughly impress upon the student qualities like humility, which are the means to knowledge.

— Adi Shankara, Upadesha Sahasri 1.4-1.5

Texts

See also: Works of Adi Shankara

The identity of Atman and Brahman, and their unchanging, eternal nature, are basic truths in Advaita Vedanta, as taught in the Upanishads, which are regarded as "errorless revealed truth." Together with Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras they are the sruti (sacred texts) of the Advaita Vedanta tradition, providing the truths about the identity of Atman and Brahman and their changeless nature.

Adi Shankara gave a nondualist interpretation of these texts in his commentaries. Adi Shankara's Bhashya (commentaries) have become central texts in the Advaita Vedanta philosophy, but are one among many ancient and medieval manuscripts available or accepted in this tradition. The subsequent Advaita tradition has further elaborated on these sruti and commentaries.

Textual authority

Advaita Vedanta, like all orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, accepts as an epistemic premise that Śruti (Vedic literature) is a reliable source of knowledge. The Śruti includes the four Vedas including its four layers of embedded texts - the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the early Upanishads. Of these, the Upanishads are the most referred to texts in the Advaita school. Most scholars, states Eliot Deutsch, are quite convinced that the Śruti in general, and the philosophical texts that are Upanishads in particular, express "a very rich diversity" of ideas, with the early Upanishads such as Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishad being more readily amenable to Advaita Vedanta school's interpretation than the middle or later Upanishads. In addition to the oldest Upanishads, states Williams, the Sannyasa Upanishads group composed in pre-Shankara times "express a decidedly Advaita outlook".

The possibility of different interpretations of the Vedic literature, states Arvind Sharma, was recognized by ancient Indian scholars. The Brahmasutra (also called Vedanta Sutra, composed in 1st millennium BCE) accepted this in verse 1.1.4 and asserts the need for the Upanishadic teachings to be understood not in piecemeal cherrypicked basis, rather in a unified way wherein the ideas in the Vedic texts are harmonized with other means of knowledge such as perception, inference and remaining pramanas. This theme has been central to the Advaita school, making the Brahmasutra as a common reference and a consolidated textual authority for Advaita. However, Brahmasutra is an aphoristic text, and itself can be interpreted as non-theistic Advaita Vedanta text or as theistic Dvaita Vedanta text; this has led, states Stephen Phillips, to its varying interpretations by various sub-schools of Vedanta. The Brahmasutra is considered by the Advaita school as the Nyaya Prasthana (canonical base for reasoning).

The Bhagavad Gita, similarly in parts can be interpreted to be a monist Advaita text, and in other parts as theistic Dvaita text. It too has been widely studied by Advaita scholars, including a commentary by Adi Shankara. The Bhagavad Gita is considered as the Smriti Prasthana in Advaita school.

Siddhi-granthas

Additionally there are four Siddhi-granthas that are taught in the Advaita-parampara, after study of the Prasthana-trayi:

1. Brahmasiddhi by Mandana Mishra (750–850),
2. Naishkarmasiddhi by Sureswara (8th century, disciple of Sankara),
3. Ishtasiddhi by Vimuktananda (1200),
4. Advaita Siddhi, written by Madhusudana Saraswati - 1565-1665.

Darśana (philosophy)

Main article: Hindu philosophy

Advaita Vedanta is one of the six classical Hindu darśanas (philosophies, world views, teachings). It is not a philosophy in the western meaning of the word, but rather a school of scriptural exegesis which provides a specific understanding or world view through a set of teachings.

Aims

The main aim of Advaita Vedanta is to explain how moksha can be attained, namely by correct knowledge of the identity of Atman/Brahman, and their primal nature as the sole Reality.

A main question is the relation between Atman and Brahman, which is solved by regarding them to be identical. This truth is established from the oldest Principal Upanishads and Brahma Sutras, and is also found in parts of the Bhagavad Gita and numerous other Hindu texts, and is regarded to be self-evident. The main aim of the commentaries is to support this nondualistic (of Atman and Brahman) reading of the sruti. Reason is being used to support revelation, the sruti, the ultimate source of truth.

Another major problem is raised by the rejection the dualism of Samkhya between purusha, primal consciousness, and prakriti, inert primal matter. The Reality of prakriti is rejected, instead stating that Atman/Brahman is the sole Reality. This rejection reaises the question how to explain phenomenal reality. By declaring phenomenal reality to be 'unreal,' or an 'illusion,' the primacy of Atman/Brahman can be maintained.

The commentaries also provide a criticism of opposing systems, including Samkhya and Buddhism.

Ontology - the nature of Being

See also: Metaphysics and Ontology

Three Levels of Reality

See also: Two truths doctrine

The swan is an important motif in Advaita. It symbolises two things: first, the swan is called hamsah in Sanskrit (which becomes hamso if the first letter in the next word is /h/). Upon repeating this hamso indefinitely, it becomes so-aham, meaning, "I am That". Second, just as a swan lives in a lake but its feathers are not soiled by water, similarly a liberated Advaitin lives in this world but is not soiled by its maya.

Shankara uses sublation as the criterion to postulate an ontological hierarchy of three levels:

• Pāramārthika (paramartha, absolute), the Reality that is metaphysically true and ontologically accurate. It is the state of experiencing that "which is absolutely real and into which both other reality levels can be resolved". This experience can't be sublated (exceeded) by any other experience.
• Vyāvahārika (vyavahara), or samvriti-saya, consisting of the empirical or pragmatical reality. It is ever changing over time, thus empirically true at a given time and context but not metaphysically true. It is "our world of experience, the phenomenal world that we handle every day when we are awake". It is the level in which both jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Iswara are true; here, the material world is also true.
• Prāthibhāsika (pratibhasika, apparent reality, unreality), "reality based on imagination alone". It is the level of experience in which the mind constructs its own reality. A well-known examples is the perception of a rope in the dark as being a snake.

Absolute Reality

Brahman

Main articles: Brahman, Nirguna Brahman, and Satcitananda

According to Advaita Vedanta Brahman is the highest Reality, That which is unborn and unchanging, and "not sublatable", and cannot be superseded by a still higher reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore maya. Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth", and

the true Self, pure consciousness ... the only Reality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable".

Advaita's Upanishadic roots state Brahman's qualities to be Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss) It means "true being-consciousness-bliss," or "Eternal Bliss Consciousness". Adi Shankara held that satcitananda is identical with Brahman and Atman. The Advaitin scholar Madhusudana Sarasvati explained Brahman as the Reality that is simultaneously an absence of falsity (sat), absence of ignorance (cit), and absence of sorrow/self-limitation (ananda). According to Adi Shankara, the knowledge of Brahman that Shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other means besides self inquiry.

According to Paul Deussen, Brahman is:

• Satyam, "the true Reality, which, however, is not the empirical one"
• Jñãnam, "Knowledge which, however, is not split into the subject and the object"
• anantam, "boundless or infinite"

According to Eliot Deutsch, the sat or being, in this experience of Brahman, is the ontological principle of unity, and "the oneness not constituted in parts." Cit or consciousness points to illuminating awareness of unchanging witness of one's being. Ananda or bliss is an axiological concept, as the principle of value, one of joyous existence. Yet, Brahman is not limited to "sat-cit-ananda", and expansively includes all "truth, knowledge, infinite", best conceptualized as unlimited in every sense through neti neti – "not this, not this".

The universe, according to Advaita philosophy, does not simply come from Brahman, it is Brahman. Brahman is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe. Brahman is the cause of all changes. Brahman is considered to be the material cause and the efficient cause of all that exists. Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe." It is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".

Atman

Main article: Ātman (Hinduism)

Ātman (IAST: ātman, Sanskrit: आत्मन्) is a Sanskrit word that means "real self" of the individual, "essence", and soul.

Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. Atman is the Universal Principle, one eternal undifferentiated self-luminous consciousness, the Truth asserts Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism.

Advaita Vedanta philosophy considers Atman as self-existent awareness, limitless and non-dual. Advaita school asserts that there is "spirit, soul, self" within each living entity which is fully identical with Brahman – the Universal Soul. This identity holds that there is One Soul that connects and exists in all living beings, regardless of their shapes or forms, there is no distinction, no superior, no inferior, no separate devotee soul (Atman), no separate God soul (Brahman). The Oneness unifies all beings, there is the divine in every being, and that all existence is a single Reality, state the Advaita Vedantins. Each soul, in Advaita view, is non-different from the infinite.

To Advaitins, human beings, in a state of unawareness and ignorance of this Universal Self, see their "I-ness" as different than the being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness. Atman-knowledge, to Advaitins, is that state of full awareness, liberation and freedom which overcomes dualities at all levels, realizing the divine within oneself, the divine in others and all living beings, the non-dual Oneness, that Brahman is in everything, and everything is Brahman.

Empirical reality

Māyā

Main article: Maya (illusion)

The empirical reality is explained in Advaita and other sub-schools of Vedanta with the concept of Maya. Human mind constructs a subjective experience, states Vedanta school, which leads to the peril of misunderstanding Maya as well as interpreting Maya as the only and final reality. Vedantins assert the "perceived world including people are not what they appear to be". There are invisible principles and laws at work, true invisible nature in others and objects, and invisible soul that one never perceives directly, but this invisible reality of Self and Soul exists, assert Advaitin scholars. Māyā is that which manifests, perpetuates a sense of false duality (or divisional plurality). The empirical manifestation is real but changing, but it obfuscates the true nature of metaphysical Reality which is never changing. Advaita school holds that liberation is the unfettered realization and understanding of the unchanging Reality and truths – the Self, that the Self (Soul) in oneself is same as the Self in another and the Self in everything (Brahman).

In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, there are two realities: Vyavaharika (empirical reality) and Paramarthika (absolute, spiritual Reality). Māyā is the empirical reality that entangles consciousness. Māyā has the power to create a bondage to the empirical world, preventing the unveiling of the true, unitary Self—the Cosmic Spirit also known as Brahman. This theory of māyā was expounded and explained by Adi Shankara. Competing theistic Dvaita scholars contested Shankara's theory, and stated that Shankara did not offer a theory of the relationship between Brahman and Māyā. A later Advaita scholar Prakasatman addressed this, by explaining, "Maya and Brahman together constitute the entire universe, just like two kinds of interwoven threads create a fabric. Maya is the manifestation of the world, whereas Brahman, which supports Maya, is the cause of the world."

Brahman is the sole metaphysical truth in Advaita Vedanta, Māyā is true in epistemological and empirical sense; however, Māyā is not the metaphysical and spiritual truth. The spiritual truth is the truth forever, while what is empirical truth is only true for now. Complete knowledge of true Reality includes knowing both Vyavaharika (empirical) and Paramarthika (spiritual), the Māyā and the Brahman. The goal of spiritual enlightenment, state Advaitins, is to realize Brahman, realize the Oneness.

Avidya

Ignorance

Due to ignorance (avidyā), Brahman is perceived as the material world and its objects (nama rupa vikara). According to Shankara, Brahman is in reality attributeless and formless. Brahman, the highest truth and all (Reality), does not really change; it is only our ignorance that gives the appearance of change. Also due to avidyā, the true identity is forgotten, and material reality, which manifests at various levels, is mistaken as the only and true reality.

The notion of avidyā and its relationship to Brahman creates a crucial philosophical issue within Advaita Vedanta thought: how can avidyā appear in Brahman, since Brahman is pure consciousness? Sengaku Mayeda writes, in his commentary and translation of Adi Shankara's Upadesasahasri:

Certainly the most crucial problem which Sankara left for his followers is that of avidyā. If the concept is logically analysed, it would lead the Vedanta philosophy toward dualism or nihilism and uproot its fundamental position.

Subsequent Advaitins gave somewhat various explanations, from which various Advaita schools arose.

Koshas

See also: Kosha

Due to avidya, atman is covered by sheaths, or bodies, which hide man's true nature. According to the Taittiriya Upanishad, the Atman is covered by five koshas, usually rendered "sheath". They are often visualised like the layers of an onion. From gross to fine the five sheaths are:

1. Annamaya kosha, food-apparent-sheath
2. Pranamaya kosha, air-apparent-sheath
3. Manomaya kosha, mind-stuff-apparent-sheath
4. Vijnanamaya kosha, wisdom-apparent-sheath
5. Anandamaya kosha, bliss-apparent-sheath (Ananda)

According to Vedanta the wise man should discriminate between the self and the koshas, which are non-self.

Three states of consciousness

See also: Three Bodies Doctrine (Vedanta) and Kosha

Advaita posits three states of consciousness, namely waking (jagrat), dreaming (svapna), deep sleep (suṣupti), which are commonly experienced by human beings, and correspond to the Three Bodies Doctrine:

1. The first state is the waking state, in which we are aware of our daily world. "It is described as outward-knowing (bahish-prajnya), gross (sthula) and universal (vaishvanara)". This is the gross body.
2. The second state is the dreaming mind. "It is described as inward-knowing (antah-prajnya), subtle (pravivikta) and burning (taijasa)". This is the subtle body.
3. The third state is the state of deep sleep. In this state the underlying ground of concsiousness is undistracted, "the Lord of all (sarv'-eshvara), the knower of all (sarva-jnya), the inner controller (antar-yami), the source of all (yonih sarvasya), the origin and dissolution of created things (prabhav'-apyayau hi bhutanam)". This is the causal body.

Turiya, pure consciousness is the background that underlies and transcends the three common states of consciousness. In this consciousness both absolute and relative, saguna brahman and Nirguna Brahman, are transcended. It is the state of liberation, where states Advaita school, one experiences the infinite (ananta) and non-different (advaita/abheda), free from the dualistic experience which results from the attempts to conceptualise (vipalka) reality. It is the state in which ajativada, non-origination, is apprehended.

Advaita traces the foundation of this ontological theory in more ancient Sanskrit texts. For example, chapters 8.7 through 8.12 of Chandogya Upanishad discuss the "four states of consciousness" as awake, dream-filled sleep, deep sleep, and beyond deep sleep.

Epistemology

See also: Pramana and Epistemology

The ancient and medieval texts of Advaita Vedanta and other schools of Hindu philosophy discuss Pramana (epistemology), that is how correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows, how one doesn't, and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired. In Advaita Vedānta, as in the Bhāṭṭa school of Mimāṃsā, the following pramāṇas are accepted:

1. Pratyakṣa (प्रत्यक्षाय) which means perception. It is of two types: external and internal. External perception is described as that arising from the interaction of five senses and worldly objects, while internal perception is described by this school as that of inner sense, the mind. The four requirements for correct perception are accepted by Advaita to be Indriyarthasannikarsa (direct experience by one's sensory organ(s) with the object, whatever is being studied), Avyapadesya (non-verbal; correct perception is not through hearsay, according to ancient Indian scholars, where one's sensory organ relies on accepting or rejecting someone else's perception), Avyabhicara (does not wander; correct perception does not change, nor is it the result of deception because one's sensory organ or means of observation is drifting, defective, suspect) and Vyavasayatmaka (definite; correct perception excludes judgments of doubt, either because of one's failure to observe all the details, or because one is mixing inference with observation and observing what one wants to observe, or not observing what one does not want to observe). The internal perception concepts included pratibha (intuition), samanyalaksanapratyaksa (a form of induction from perceived specifics to a universal), and jnanalaksanapratyaksa (a form of perception of prior processes and previous states of a 'topic of study' by observing its current state).
2. 'Anumāṇa (अनुमान) means inference. It is described as reaching a new conclusion and truth from one or more observations and previous truths by applying reason. Observing smoke and inferring fire is an example of Anumana. This epistemic method for gaining knowledge consists of three parts: pratijna (hypothesis), hetu (a reason), and drshtanta (examples). The hypothesis must further be broken down into two parts, state the ancient Indian scholars: sadhya (that idea which needs to proven or disproven) and paksha (the object on which the sadhya is predicated). The inference is conditionally true if sapaksha (positive examples as evidence) are present, and if vipaksha (negative examples as counter-evidence) are absent. For rigor, the Indian philosophies also state further epistemic steps. For example, they demand Vyapti - the requirement that the hetu (reason) must necessarily and separately account for the inference in "all" cases, in both sapaksha and vipaksha. A conditionally proven hypothesis is called a nigamana (conclusion).
3. Upamāṇa (उपमान) means comparison and analogy. Some Hindu schools consider it as a proper means of knowledge. Upamana, states Lochtefeld, may be explained with the example of a traveller who has never visited lands or islands with endemic population of wildlife. He or she is told, by someone who has been there, that in those lands you see an animal that sort of looks like a cow, grazes like cow but is different from a cow in such and such way. Such use of analogy and comparison is, state the Indian epistemologists, a valid means of conditional knowledge, as it helps the traveller identify the new animal later. The subject of comparison is formally called upameyam, the object of comparison is called upamanam, while the attribute(s) are identified as samanya.
4. Arthāpatti (अर्थापत्ति) means postulation, derivation from circumstances. In contemporary logic, this pramana is similar to circumstantial implication. As example, if a person left in a boat on river earlier, and the time is now past the expected time of arrival, then the circumstances support the truth postulate that the person has arrived. Many Indian scholars considered this pramana as invalid or at best weak, because the boat may have gotten delayed or diverted. However, in cases such as deriving the time of a future sunrise or sunset, this method was asserted by the proponents to be reliable. Another common example for arthapatti in ancient Hindu texts is, that if "Devadatta is fat" and "Devadatta never eats during the day", then the following must be true: "Devadatta eats in the night". This form of postulation and deriving from circumstances is, claim the Indian scholars, a means to discovery, proper insight and knowledge.
5. Anupalabdi (अनुपलब्धि) means non-perception, negative/cognitive proof. Anupalabdhi pramana suggests that knowing a negative, such as "there is no jug in this room" is a form of valid knowledge. If something can be observed or inferred or proven as non-existent or impossible, then one knows more than what one did without such means. In Advaita school of Hindu philosophy, a valid conclusion is either sadrupa (positive) or asadrupa (negative) relation - both correct and valuable. Like other pramana, Indian scholars refined Anupalabdi to four types: non-perception of the cause, non-perception of the effect, non-perception of object, and non-perception of contradiction. Only two schools of Hinduism accepted and developed the concept "non-perception" as a pramana. Advaita considers this method as valid and useful when the other five pramanas fail in one's pursuit of knowledge and truth. A variation of Anupaladbi, called Abhava (अभाव) has also been posited as an epistemic method. It means non-existence. Some scholars consider Anupalabdi to be same as Abhava, while others consider Anupalabdi and Abhava as different. Abhava-pramana has been discussed in Advaita in the context of Padartha (पदार्थ, referent of a term). A Padartha is defined as that which is simultaneously Astitva (existent), Jneyatva (knowable) and Abhidheyatva (nameable). Abhava was further refined in four types, by the schools of Hinduism that accepted it as a useful method of epistemology: dhvamsa (termination of what existed), atyanta-abhava (impossibility, absolute non-existence, contradiction), anyonya-abhava (mutual negation, reciprocal absence) and pragavasa (prior, antecedent non-existence).
6. Śabda (शब्द) means relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts. Hiriyanna explains Sabda-pramana as a concept which means reliable expert testimony. The schools of Hinduism which consider it epistemically valid suggest that a human being needs to know numerous facts, and with the limited time and energy available, he can learn only a fraction of those facts and truths directly. He must rely on others, his parent, family, friends, teachers, ancestors and kindred members of society to rapidly acquire and share knowledge and thereby enrich each other's lives. This means of gaining proper knowledge is either spoken or written, but through Sabda (words). The reliability of the source is important, and legitimate knowledge can only come from the Sabda of reliable sources. The disagreement between Advaita and other schools of Hinduism has been on how to establish reliability.

Goals of human life and soteriology

Main articles: Moksha and Jivanmukta

Moksha

Advaita, like other schools, accepts Puruṣārtha - the four goals of human life as natural and proper:

• Dharma: the right way to life, the "duties and obligations of the individual toward himself and the society as well as those of the society toward the individual";
• Artha: the means to support and sustain one's life;
• Kāma: pleasure and enjoyment;
• Mokṣa: liberation, release.

Of these, much of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy focuses on the last, gaining liberation in one's current life. The first three are discussed and encouraged by Advaitins, but usually in the context of knowing Brahman and Self-realization. The soteriological goal, in Advaita, is to gain knowledge and complete understanding of the identity of Atman and Brahman. In Advaita Vedanta, the interest is not in liberation in after life, but in one's current life. This school holds that liberation can be achieved while living, and a person who achieves this is called a Jivanmukta.

Jivanmukta

The concept of Jivanmukti of Advaita Vedanta contrasts with Videhamukti (moksha from samsara after death) in theistic sub-schools of Vedanta. Jivanmukti is a state that transforms the nature, attributes and behaviors of an individual, after which the liberated individual shows attributes such as:

• he is not bothered by disrespect and endures cruel words, treats others with respect regardless of how others treat him;
• when confronted by an angry person he does not return anger, instead replies with soft and kind words;
• even if tortured, he speaks and trusts the truth;
• he does not crave for blessings or expect praise from others;
• he never injures or harms any life or being (ahimsa), he is intent in the welfare of all beings;
• he is as comfortable being alone as in the presence of others;
• he is as comfortable with a bowl, at the foot of a tree in tattered robe without help, as when he is in a mithuna (union of mendicants), grama (village) and nagara (city);
• he doesn’t care about or wear sikha (tuft of hair on the back of head for religious reasons), nor the holy thread across his body. To him, knowledge is sikha, knowledge is the holy thread, knowledge alone is supreme. Outer appearances and rituals do not matter to him, only knowledge matters;
• for him there is no invocation nor dismissal of deities, no mantra nor non-mantra, no prostrations nor worship of gods, goddess or ancestors, nothing other than knowledge of Self;
• he is humble, high spirited, of clear and steady mind, straightforward, compassionate, patient, indifferent, courageous, speaks firmly and with sweet words.

Ethics

Some claim, states Deutsch, that there is no place for ethics in Advaita, "that it turns its back on all theoretical and practical considerations of morality and, if not unethical, is at least 'a-ethical' in character". However, adds Deutsch, ethics does have a firm place in this philosophy. Ethics, which implies doing good Karma, indirectly helps in attaining true knowledge.

Adi Shankara, a leading proponent of Advaita, in verse 1.25 to 1.26 of his Upadeśasāhasrī, asserts that the Self-knowledge is understood and realized when one's mind is purified by the observation of Yamas (ethical precepts) such as Ahimsa (non-violence, abstinence from injuring others in body, mind and thoughts), Satya (truth, abstinence from falsehood), Asteya (abstinence from theft), Aparigraha (abstinence from possessiveness and craving) and a simple life of meditation and reflection. Rituals and rites can help focus and prepare the mind for the journey to Self-knowledge, however, Shankara discourages ritual worship and oblations to Deva (God), because that assumes the Self within is different than Brahman. The "doctrine of difference" is wrong, asserts Shankara, because, "he who knows the Brahman is one and he is another, does not know Brahman".

Elsewhere, in verses 1.26-1.28, the Advaita text Upadesasahasri states the ethical premise of equality of all beings. Any Bheda (discrimination), states Shankara, based on class or caste or parentage is a mark of inner error and lack of liberating knowledge. This text states that the fully liberated person understands and practices the ethics of non-difference.

One, who is eager to realize this highest truth spoken of in the Sruti, should rise above the fivefold form of desire: for a son, for wealth, for this world and the next, and are the outcome of a false reference to the Self of Varna (castes, colors, classes) and orders of life. These references are contradictory to right knowledge, and reasons are given by the Srutis regarding the prohibition of the acceptance of difference. For when the knowledge that the one non-dual Atman (Self) is beyond phenomenal existence is generated by the scriptures and reasoning, there cannot exist a knowledge side by side that is contradictory or contrary to it.

— Adi Shankara, Upadesha Sahasri 1.44,

History of Advaita Vedanta

Adi Shankara with Disciples, by Raja Ravi Varma (1904)

Advaita Vedanta existed prior to Shankara, but found its most influential expounder in Shankara.

Pre-Shankara Vedanta

Of the Vedanta-school before the composition of the Brahma Sutras (400–450 CE) almost nothing is known. Very little also is known of the period between the Brahmansutras and Shankara (first half of the 8th century CE). Only two writings of this period have survived: the Vākyapadīya, written by Bhartṛhari (second half 5th century), and the Māndūkya-kārikā written by Gaudapada (7th century CE).

Earliest Vedanta

See also: Vedas, Upanishads, and Darsanas

The Upanishads form the basic texts, of which Vedanta gives an interpretation. The Upanishads don't contain "a rigorous philosophical inquiry identifying the doctrines and formulating the supporting arguments". This philosophical inquiry was performed by the darsanas, the various philosophical schools. Deutsch and Dalvi point out that in the Indian context texts "are only part of a tradition which is preserved in its purest form in the oral transmission as it has been going on."

Bādarāyana's Brahma Sutras

Main article: Brahma Sutras

The Brahma Sutras of Bādarāyana, also called the Vedanta Sutra, were compiled in its present form around 400–450 CE, but "the great part of the Sutra must have been in existence much earlier than that". Estimates of the date of Bādarāyana's lifetime differ between 200 BCE and 200 CE.

The Brahma Sutra is a critical study of the teachings of the Upanishads. It was and is a guide-book for the great teachers of the Vedantic systems. Bādarāyana was not the first person to systematise the teachings of the Upanishads. He refers to seven Vedantic teachers before him:

From the way in which Bādarāyana cites the views of others it is obvious that the teachings of the Upanishads must have been analyzed and interpreted by quite a few before him and that his systematization of them in 555 sutras arranged in four chapters must have been the last attempt, most probably the best.

Between Brahma Sutras and Shankara

According to Nakamura, "there must have been an enormous number of other writings turned out in this period, but unfortunately all of them have been scattered or lost and have not come down to us today". In his commentaries, Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his Sampradaya. In the beginning of his commentary on the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Shankara salutes the teachers of the Brahmavidya Sampradaya. Pre-Shankara doctrines and sayings can be traced in the works of the later schools, which does give insight into the development of early Vedanta philosophy.

The names of various important early Vedanta thinkers have been listed in the Siddhitraya by Yamunācārya (c.1050), the Vedārthasamgraha by Rāmānuja (c.1050–1157), and the Yatīndramatadīpikā by Śrīnivāsa-dāsa. Combined together, at least fourteen thinkers are known to have existed between the composition of the Brahman Sutras and Shankara's lifetime.

Although Shankara is often considered to be the founder of the Advaita Vedanta school, according to Nakamura, comparison of the known teachings of these early Vedantins and Shankara's thought shows that most of the characteristics of Shankara's thought "were advocated by someone before Śankara". Shankara "was the person who synthesized the Advaita-vāda which had previously existed before him". In this synthesis, he was the rejuvenator and defender of ancient learning. He was an unequalled commentator, due to whose efforts and contributions the Advaita Vedanta assumed a dominant position within Indian philosophy.

Gaudapada

Main article: Gaudapada

Gaudapada (6th century) was the teacher of Govinda Bhagavatpada and the grandteacher of Shankara. Gaudapada uses the concepts of Ajativada and Maya to establish "that from the level of ultimate truth the world is a cosmic illusion," and "and suggests that the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream." In contrast, Adi Shankara insists upon a distinction between waking experience and dreams.

Māṇḍukya Kārikā

Gaudapada wrote or compiled the Māṇḍukya Kārikā, also known as the Gauḍapāda Kārikā and as the Āgama Śāstra. The Māṇḍukya Kārikā is a commentary in verse form on the Mandukya Upanishad, one of the shortest but most profound Upanishads, or mystical Vedas, consisting of just 13 prose sentences. In Shankara's time it was considered to be a Śruti, but not particularly important. In later periods it acquired a higher status, and eventually it was regarded as expressing the essence of the Upanisad philosophy.

The Māṇḍukya Kārikā is the earliest extent systematic treatise on Advaita Vedānta, though it is not the oldest work to present Advaita views, nor the only pre-Sankara work with the same type of teachings.

Shri Gaudapadacharya Math

Main article: Shri Gaudapadacharya Math

Around 740 AD Gaudapada founded Shri Gaudapadacharya Math, also known as Kavaḷē maṭha. It is located in Kavale, Ponda, Goa, and is the oldest matha of the South Indian Saraswat Brahmins.

Adi Shankara

Main article: Adi Shankara

Adi Shankara (788–820), also known as Śaṅkara Bhagavatpādācārya and Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, represents a turning point in the development of Vedanta. After the growing influence og Buddhism on Vedanta, culminating in the works of Gaudapada, Vivekananda gave a Vedantic character to the Buddhistic elements in these works, synthesising and rejuvenating the doctrine of Advaita. Using ideas in ancient Indian texts, Shankara systematized the foundation for Advaita Vedanta in 8th century CE, though the school was founded many centuries earlier by Badarayana. His thematic focus extended beyond metaphysics and soteriology, and he laid a strong emphasis on Pramanas, that is epistemology or "means to gain knowledge, reasoning methods that empower one to gain reliable knowledge". Rambachan, for example, summarizes the widely held view on one aspect of Shankara's epistemology before critiquing it as follows,

According to these [widely represented contemporary] studies, Shankara only accorded a provisional validity to the knowledge gained by inquiry into the words of the Śruti (Vedas) and did not see the latter as the unique source (pramana) of Brahmajnana. 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.

— Anantanand Rambachan

Sengaku Mayeda 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.

Adi Shankara cautioned against cherrypicking a phrase or verse out of context from Vedic literature, and remarked that the Anvaya (theme or purport) of any treatise can only be correctly understood if one attends to the Samanvayat Tatparya Linga, that is six characteristics of the text under consideration: (1) the common in Upakrama (introductory statement) and Upasamhara (conclusions); (2) Abhyasa (message repeated); (3) Apurvata (unique proposition or novelty); (4) Phala (fruit or result derived); (5) Arthavada (explained meaning, praised point) and (6) Yukti (verifiable reasoning). While this methodology has roots in the theoretical works of Nyaya school of Hinduism, Shankara consolidated and applied it with his unique exegetical method called Anvaya-Vyatireka, which states that for proper understanding one must "accept only meanings that are compatible with all characteristics" and "exclude meanings that are incompatible with any".

Hacker and Phillips note that this insight into rules of reasoning and hierarchical emphasis on epistemic steps is "doubtlessly the suggestion" of Shankara in Brahma-sutra, an insight that flowers in the works of his companion and disciple Padmapada. Merrell-Wolff states that Shankara accepts Vedas and Upanishads as a source of knowledge as he develops his philosophical theses, yet he never rests his case on the ancient texts, rather proves each thesis, point by point using pranamas (epistemology), reason and experience.

Historical context

See also Late-Classical Age and Hinduism Middle Ages

Shankara lived in the time of the so-called "Late classical Hinduism", which lasted from 650 till 1100 CE. This era was one of political instability that followed Gupta dynasty and King Harsha of the 7th century CE. It was a time of social and cultural change as the ideas of Buddhism, Jainism and various traditions within Hinduism were competing for members. Buddhism in particular influenced in India's spiritual traditions in the first 700 years of the 1st millennium CE. Shankara, and his contemporaries, made a significant contribution in understanding Buddhism and the ancient Vedic traditions, then transforming the extant ideas, particularly reforming the Vedanta tradition of Hinduism, making it India's most important tradition for more than a thousand years.

Writings

Main article: Adi Shankara bibliography

Adi Shankara is most known for his systematic reviews and commentaries (Bhasyas) on ancient Indian texts. Shankara's masterpiece of commentary is the Brahmasutrabhasya (literally, commentary on Brahma Sutra), a fundamental text of the Vedanta school of Hinduism.

His commentaries on ten Mukhya (principal) Upanishads are also considered authentic by scholars. Other authentic works of Shankara include commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita (part of his Prasthana Trayi Bhasya). His Vivarana (tertiary notes) on the commentary by Vedavyasa on Yogasutras as well as those on Apastamba Dharma-sũtras (Adhyatama-patala-bhasya) are accepted by scholars as authentic works of Adi Shankara. Among the Stotra (poetic works), the Daksinamurti Stotra, the Bhajagovinda Stotra, the Sivanandalahari, the Carpata-panjarika, the Visnu-satpadi, the Harimide, the Dasa-shloki, and the Krishna-staka are likely to be authentic.

Shankara also authored Upadesasahasri, his most important original philosophical work. Of other original Prakaranas (प्रकरण, monographs, treatise), seventy six works are attributed to Adi Shankara. Modern era Indian scholars such as Belvalkar as well as Upadhyaya accept five and thirty nine works respectively as authentic.

Commentaries on Nrisimha-Purvatatapaniya and Shveshvatara Upanishads are attributed to Adi Shankara, but their authenticity is highly doubtful. Similarly, commentaries on several early and later Upanishads attributed to Shankara are rejected by scholars to be his works, and are likely works of later Advaita Vedanta scholars; these include: Kaushitaki Upanishad, Maitri Upanishad, Kaivalya Upanishad, Paramahamsa Upanishad, Sakatayana Upanishad, Mandala Brahmana Upanishad, Maha Narayana Upanishad, Gopalatapaniya Upanishad.

The authenticity of Shankara being the author of Vivekacūḍāmaṇi has been questioned, but scholars generally credit it to him. The authorship of Shankara of his Mandukya Upanishad Bhasya and his supplementary commentary on Gaudapada's Māṇḍukya Kārikā has been disputed by Nakamura. However, other scholars state that the commentary on Mandukya, which is actually a commentary on Madukya-Karikas by Gaudapada, may be authentic.

Influence of Shankara

Shankara has an unparallelled status in the tradition of Advaita Vedanta. He travelled all over India to help restore the study of the Vedas. His teachings and tradition form the basis of Smartism and have influenced Sant Mat lineages. He introduced the Pañcāyatana form of worship, the simultaneous worship of five deities – Ganesha, Surya, Vishnu, Shiva and Devi. Shankara explained that all deities were but different forms of the one Brahman, the invisible Supreme Being.

Benedict Ashley credits Adi Shankara for unifying two seemingly disparate philosophical doctrines in Hinduism, namely Atman and Brahman. Isaeva states Shankara's influence included reforming Hinduism, founding monasteries, edifying disciples, disputing opponents and engaging in philosophic activity that, in the eyes of Indian tradition, help revive "the orthodox idea of the unity of all beings" and Vedanta thought.

Some scholars doubt Shankara's early influence in India. According to King and Roodurmun, until the 10th century Shankara was overshadowed by his older contemporary Mandana-Misra, the latter considered to be the major representative of Advaita. Other scholars state that the historical records for this period are unclear, and little reliable information is known about the various contemporaries and disciples of Shankara.

Several scholars suggest that the historical fame and cultural influence of Shankara grew centuries later, particularly during the era of Muslim invasions and consequent devastation of India. Many of Shankara's biographies were created and published in and after 14th century, such as the widely cited Vidyaranya's Śankara-vijaya. Vidyaranya, also known as Madhava, who was the 12th Jagadguru of the Śringeri Śarada Pītham from 1380 to 1386, inspired the re-creation of the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire of South India in response to the devastation caused by the Islamic Delhi Sultanate. He and his brothers, suggest Paul Hacker and other scholars, wrote about Śankara as well as extensive Advaitic commentaries on Vedas and Dharma. Vidyaranya was a minister in Vijayanagara Empire and enjoyed royal support, and his sponsorship and methodical efforts helped establish Shankara as a rallying symbol of values, and helped spread historical and cultural influence of Shankara's Vedanta philosophies. Vidyaranya also helped establish monasteries (mathas) to expand the cultural influence of Shankara and Advaita Vedanta.

Sureśvara and Maṇḍana Miśra

Main articles: Sureśvara and Maṇḍana Miśra

Sureśvara (fl. 800-900 CE) and Maṇḍana Miśra were contemporaries of Shankara, Sureśvara often (incorrectly) being identified with Maṇḍana Miśra. Both explained Sankara "on the basis of their personal convictions." Sureśvara has also been credited as the founder of a pre-Shankara branch of Advaita Vedanta.

Maṇḍana Miśra was a Mimamsa scholar and a follower of Kumarila, but who also wrote a work on Advaita, the Brahma-siddhi. According to tradition, Maṇḍana Miśra and his wife were defeated by Shankara in a debate, where-after he became a follower of Shankara. Yet, his attitude toward Shankara is that of a "self-confident rival teacher of Advaita," and his influence was such, that some regard this work to have "set forth a non-Sankaran brand of Advaita." The "theory of error" set forth in the Brahma-siddhi became the normative Advaita Vedanta theory of error. It was Vachaspati Misra's commentary on this work which linked it up with Shankara's teaching.

Hiriyanna and Kuppuswami Sastra have pointed out that Sureśvara and Maṇḍana Miśra had different views on various doctrinal points:

• The locus of avidya: according to Maṇḍana Miśra, the individual jiva is the locus of avidya, whereas Suresvara contents that avidya regarding Brahman is located in Brahman. These two different stances are also reflected in the opposing positions of the Bhamati school and the Vivarana school.
• Liberation: according to Maṇḍana Miśra, the knowledge which arises from the Mahavakya is insufficient for liberation. Only the direct realization of Brahma is liberating, which can only be attained by meditation. According to Suresvara, this knowledge is directly liberating, while meditation is at best a useful aid.

Advaita Vedanta sub-schools

After Shankara's death several subschools developed. Two of them still exist today, the Bhāmatī and the Vivarana. Perished schools are the Pancapadika and Istasiddhi, which were replaced by Prakasatman's Vivarana-school.

These schools worked out the logical implications of various Advaita doctrines. Two of the problems they encountered were the further interpretations to the concepts of māyā and avidya.

Padmapada - Pancapadika school

Padmapada (c. 800 CE) was a direct disciple of Shankara, who wrote the Pancapadika, a commentary on the Sankara-bhaya. Padmapada diverted from Shankara in his description of avidya, designating prakrti as avidya or ajnana.

Vachaspati Misra - Bhamati school

Main articles: Bhamati and Vācaspati Miśra

Vachaspati Misra (c.800-900 CE) wrote the Brahmatattva-samiksa, a commentary on Maṇḍana Miśra's Brahma-siddhi, which provides the link between Mandana Misra and Shankara, attempting to harmonise Sankara's thought with that of Mandana Misra. According to Advaita tradition, Shankara reincarnated as Vachaspati Misra "to popularise the Advaita System through his Bhamati." Only two works are known of Vachaspati Misra, the Brahmatattva-samiksa on Maṇḍana Miśra's Brahma-siddhi, and his Bhamati on the Sankara-bhasya, Shankara's commentary on the Brahma-sutras. The name of the Bhamati-subschool is derived from this Bhamati. According to legend, Misra's commentary was named after his wife to praise her, since he neglected her during the writing of his commentary.

The Bhamati-school takes an ontological approach. It sees the Jiva as the source of avidya. It sees meditation as the main factor in the acquirement of liberation, while the study of the Vedas and reflection are additional factors.

Prakasatman - Vivarana school

Main article: Vivarana

Prakasatman (c.1200-1300) wrote the Pancapadika-Vivarana, a commentary on the Pancapadika by Padmapadacharya. The Vivarana lends its name to the subsequent school. According to Roodurmum, "his line of thought [...] became the leitmotif of all subsequent developments in the evolution of the Advaita tradition."

The Vivarana-school takes an epistemological approach. Prakasatman was the first to propound the theory of mulavidya or maya as being of "positive beginningless nature", and sees Brahman as the source of avidya. Critics object that Brahman is pure consciousness, so it can't be the source of avidya. Another problem is that contradictory qualities, namely knowledge and ignorance, are attributed to Brahman.

Vimuktatman - Ista-Siddhi

Vimuktatman (c.1200 CE) wrote the Ista-siddhi. It is one of the four traditional siddhi, together with Mandana's Brahma-siddhi, Suresvara's Naiskarmya-siddhi, and Madusudana's Advaita-siddhi. According to Vimuktatman, absolute Reality is "pure intuitive consciousness." His school of thought was eventually replaced by Prakasatman's Vivarana school.

Later Advaita Vedanta tradition

See also: Dashanami Sampradaya and List of teachers of Advaita Vedanta

According to Sangeetha Menon, prominent names in the later Advaita tradition are:

• Prakāsātman, Vimuktātman, Sarvajñātman (tenth century),
• Śrī Harṣa, Citsukha (twelfth century),
• ānandagiri, Amalānandā (thirteenth century),
• Vidyāraņya, Śaṅkarānandā (fourteenth century),
• Sadānandā (fifteenth century),
• Prakāṣānanda, Nṛsiṁhāśrama (sixteenth century),
• Madhusūdhana Sarasvati, Dharmarāja Advarindra, Appaya Dīkśita (seventeenth century),
• Sadaśiva Brahmendra (eighteenth century),
• Candraśekhara Bhārati (twentieth century), Sacchidānandendra Saraswati (twentieth century).

Contemporary teachers are the orthodox Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham; the more traditional teachers Sivananda Saraswati (1887–1963), Chinmayananda Saraswati, and Dayananda Saraswati (Arsha Vidya); and less traditional teachers like Narayana Guru.

Sampradaya

Advaita Mathas

See also: Dashanami Sampradaya

(Vidyashankara temple) at Sringeri Sharada Peetham, Shringeri

Advaita Vedanta is, at least in the west, primarily known as a philosophical system. But it is also a tradition of renunciation. Philosophy and renunciation are closely related:

Most of the notable authors in the advaita tradition were members of the sannyasa tradition, and both sides of the tradition share the same values, attitudes and metaphysics.

Shankara, himself considered to be an incarnation of Shiva, established the Dashanami Sampradaya, organizing a section of the Ekadandi monks under an umbrella grouping of ten names. Several other Hindu monastic and Ekadandi traditions remained outside the organisation of the Dasanāmis.

Adi Sankara is said to have organised the Hindu monks of these ten sects or names under four Maṭhas (Sanskrit: मठ) (monasteries), with the headquarters at Dvārakā in the West, Jagannatha Puri in the East, Sringeri in the South and Badrikashrama in the North. Each math was headed by one of his four main disciples, who each continues the Vedanta Sampradaya.

Monks of these ten orders differ in part in their beliefs and practices, and a section of them is not considered to be restricted to specific changes made by Shankara. While the dasanāmis associated with the Sankara maths follow the procedures enumerated by Adi Śankara, some of these orders remained partly or fully independent in their belief and practices; and outside the official control of the Sankara maths.

The advaita sampradaya is not a Saiva sect, despite the historical links with Shaivism. Nevertheless, contemporary Sankaracaryas have more influence among Saiva communities than among Vaisnava communities. The greatest influence of the gurus of the advaita tradition has been among followers of the Smartha Tradition, who integrate the domestic Vedic ritual with devotional aspects of Hinduism.

According to Nakamura, these mathas contributed to the influence of Shankara, which was "due to institutional factors". The mathas which he built exist until today, and preserve the teachings and influence of Shankara, "while the writings of other scholars before him came to be forgotten with the passage of time".

The table below gives an overview of the four Amnaya Mathas founded by Adi Shankara, and their details.

Shishya (lineage)	Direction	Maṭha	Mahāvākya	Veda	Sampradaya
Padmapāda	East	Govardhana Pīṭhaṃ	Prajñānam brahma (Consciousness is Brahman)	Rig Veda	Bhogavala
Sureśvara	South	Sringeri Śārada Pīṭhaṃ	Aham brahmāsmi (I am Brahman)	Yajur Veda	Bhūrivala
Hastāmalakācārya	West	Dvāraka Pīṭhaṃ	Tattvamasi (That thou art)	Sama Veda	Kitavala
Toṭakācārya	North	Jyotirmaṭha Pīṭhaṃ	Ayamātmā brahma (This Atman is Brahman)	Atharva Veda	Nandavala

According to the tradition in Kerala, after Sankara's samadhi at Vadakkunnathan Temple, his disciples founded four mathas in Thrissur, namely Naduvil Madhom, Thekke Madhom, Idayil Madhom and Vadakke Madhom.

Smarta Tradition

Main article: Smarta Tradition

Traditionally, Shankara is regarded as the greatest teacher and reformer of the Smartha. According to Alf Hiltebeitel, Shankara established the nondualist interpretation of the Upanishads as the touchstone of a revived smarta tradition:

Practically, Shankara fostered a rapprochement between Advaita and smarta orthodoxy, which by his time had not only continued to defend the varnasramadharma theory as defining the path of karman, but had developed the practice of pancayatanapuja ("five-shrine worship") as a solution to varied and conflicting devotional practices. Thus one could worship any one of five deities (Vishnu, Siva, Durga, Surya, Ganesa) as one's istadevata ("deity of choice").

The Sringeri monastery is still the centre of the Smarta sect. In recent times bhakti cults have increasingly become popular with the smartas, and Shiva is particularly favored. In modern times Smarta-views have been highly influential in both the Indian and western understanding of Hinduism via Neo-Vedanta. Vivekananda was an advocate of Smarta-views, and Radhakrishnan was himself a Smarta-Brahman.

Influence on modern Hinduism

Unifying Hinduism

Main article: Unifying Hinduism

Advaita Vedanta came to occupy a central position in the classification of various Hindu traditions. With the onset of Islamic rule, hierarchical classifications of the various orthodox schools were developed to shield Hindu Philosophy from Islamic influences. According to Nicholson, already between the twelfth and the sixteenth century,

... certain thinkers began to treat as a single whole the diverse philosophical teachings of the Upanishads, epics, Puranas, and the schools known retrospectively as the "six systems" (saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy.

The tendency of "a blurring of philosophical distinctions" has also been noted by Burley. Lorenzen locates the origins of a distinct Hindu identity in the interaction between Muslims and Hindus, and a process of "mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim other", which started well before 1800. Both the Indian and the European thinkers who developed the term "Hinduism" in the 19th century were influenced by these philosophers.

Within these doxologies, Advaita Vedanta was given the highest position, since it was regarded to be most inclusive system. Vijnanabhiksu, a 16th-century philosopher and writer, is still an influential representant of these doxologies. He's been a prime influence on 19th century Hindu modernists like Vivekananda, who also tried to integrate various strands of Hindu thought, taking Advaita Vedanta as its most representative specimen.

Contemporary views

Historical influence

Scholars are divided on the historical influence of Advaita Vedanta. Some Indologists state that it is one of the most studied Hindu philosophy and the most influential schools of classical Indian thought. Advaita Vedanta, states Eliot Deutsch, "has been and continues to be the most widely accepted system of thought among philosophers in India, and it is, we believe, one of the greatest philosophical achievements to be found in the East or the West".

In contrast, King states that its present position as the key Indian philosophy is a modern phenomenon, which developed under the of western Orientalism and Perennialism.

Indian nationalism and Hindu Universalism

Main articles: Hindu nationalism and Hindu reform movements

With the onset of the British Raj, the colonialisation of India by the British, there also started a Hindu renaissance in the 19th century, which profoundly changed the understanding of Hinduism in both India and the west. Western orientalist searched for the "essence" of the Indian religions, discerning this in the Vedas, and meanwhile creating the notion of "Hinduism" as a unified body of religious praxis and the popular picture of 'mystical India'. This idea of a Vedic essence was taken over by the Hindu reformers, together with the ideas of Universalism and Perennialism, the idea that all religions share a common mystic ground. The Brahmo Samaj, who was supported for a while by the Unitarian Church, played an essential role in the introduction and spread of this new understanding of Hinduism.

Vedanta came to be regarded as the essence of Hinduism, and Advaita Vedanta came to be regarded as "then paradigmatic example of the mystical nature of the Hindu religion". These notions served well for the Hindu nationalists, who further popularised this notion of Advaita Vedanta as the pinnacle of Indian religions. It "provided an opportunity for the construction of a nationalist ideology that could unite HIndus in their struggle against colonial oppression".

In modern times, states King, Advaita Vedanta has acquired a broad acceptance in Indian culture and beyond as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality.

Vivekananda

Main articles: Neo-Vedanta, Swami Vivekananda, and Ramakrishna Mission

A major proponent in the popularisation of this Universalist and Perennialist interpretation of Advaita Vedanta was Vivekananda, who played a major role in the revival of Hinduism, and the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the west via the Ramakrishna Mission. His interpretation of Advaita Vedanta has been called "Neo-Vedanta". Vivekananda discerned a universal religion, regarding all the apparent differences between various traditions as various manifestations of one truth. He presented karma, bhakti, jnana and raja yoga as equal means to attain moksha, to present Vedanta as a liberal and universal religion, in contrast to the exclusivism of other religions.

Vivekananda emphasised samadhi as a means to attain liberation. Yet this emphasis is not to be found in the Upanishads nor with Shankara. For Shankara, meditation and Nirvikalpa Samadhi are means to gain knowledge of the already existing unity of Brahman and Atman. Vivekananda also claimed that Advaita is the only religion that is in agreement with modern science. In a talk on "The absolute and manifestation" given in at London in 1896 Swami Vivekananda said,

I may make bold to say that the only religion which agrees with, and even goes a little further than modern researchers, both on physical and moral lines is the Advaita, and that is why it appeals to modern scientists so much. They find that the old dualistic theories are not enough for them, do not satisfy their necessities. A man must have not only faith, but intellectual faith too".

Mukerji criticizes this view of Vivekenanda:

Without calling into question the right of any philosopher to interpret Advaita according to his own understanding of it, ... the process of Westernization has obscured the core of this school of thought. The basic correlation of renunciation and Bliss has been lost sight of in the attempts to underscore the cognitive structure and the realistic structure which according to Samkaracarya should both belong to, and indeed constitute the realm of māyā.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Main article: Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan further popularized Advaita Vedanta, presenting it as the essence of Hinduism, but neglecting the popular bhakti-traditions. Radhakrishnan saw other religions, "including what Radhakrishnan understands as lower forms of Hinduism," as interpretations of Advaita Vedanta, thereby Hindusizing all religions. His metaphysics was grounded in Advaita Vedanta, but he reinterpreted Advaita Vedanta for a contemporary understanding. He acknowledged the reality and diversity of the world of experience, which he saw as grounded in and supported by the absolute or Brahman. Radhakrishnan also reinterpreted Shankara's notion of maya. According to Radhakrishnan, maya is not a strict absolute idealism, but "a subjective misperception of the world as ultimately real."

Neo-Advaita

Main article: Neo-Advaita

Neo-Advaita is a New Religious Movement based on a popularised, western interpretation of Advaita Vedanta and the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. Neo-Advaita is being criticised for discarding the traditional prerequisites of knowledge of the scriptures and "renunciation as necessary preparation for the path of jnana-yoga". Notable neo-advaita teachers are H. W. L. Poonja, his students Gangaji Andrew Cohen, and Eckhart Tolle.

Non-dualism

Main article: Nondualism

Advaita Vedanta has gained attention in western spirituality and New Age, where various traditions are seen as driven by the same non-dual experience. Nonduality points to "a primordial, natural awareness without subject or object". It is also used to refer to interconnectedness, "the sense that all things are interconnected and not separate, while at the same time all things retain their individuality".

Relationship with other forms of Vedanta

The exposition and spread of Advaita by Sankara spurred debate with the two main theistic schools of Vedanta philosophy that were formalised later: Vishishtadvaita (qualified nondualism), and Dvaita (dualism).

Vishishtadvaita

Main article: Vishishtadvaita

Dvaita

Main article: Dvaita

The Dvaita, founded by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 AD), was partisan to Vaishnavism, building on a cogent system of Vedantic interpretation that proceeded to take on Advaita in full measure. Madhvacharya's student Narayana, in his Madhvavijaya, a hagiography of Madhva, characterised Madhva and Shankara as born-enemies, and describes Shankara as a "demon born on earth". Surendranath Dasgupta noted that some Madhva mythology went so far as to characterise the followers of Shankara as "tyrannical people who burned down monasteries, destroyed cattle and killed women and children".

Relationship with Buddhism

Ontology

Advaita Vedanta is a substance ontology, an ontology "which holds that underlying the seeming change, variety, and multiplicity of existence there are unchanging and permanent entities (the so-called substances)". In contrast, Buddhism is a process ontology, according to which "there exists nothing permanent and unchanging, within or without man".

Advaita three levels of reality theory, states Renard, is built on the two levels of reality found in the Madhyamika.

Brahma sutras

According to B.N.K. Sharma, the early commentators on the Brahma Sutras were all realists, or pantheist realists. They, states Sharma were influenced by Buddhism, particularly during the 5th and 6th centuries Buddhist thought developing in the Yogacara school. The 6th-century Gaudapada bridged Buddhism and Vedanta, suggests Sharma, by taking over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra) and "that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation".

Gaudapada "wove Buddhist doctrines into a philosophy of the Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara". At the same time, Gaudapada emphatically rejected some theories of the Buddhists, such as the multiplicity and momentariness of consciousnesses, which were core doctrines of the Vijnanavada school, and their techniques for achieving liberation.

Gaudapada also took over the Buddhist concept of "ajāta" from Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy, which uses the term "anutpāda". An equivalent theory of "Ajātivāda", "the Doctrine of no-origination" or non-creation, is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada. According to Gaudapada, the Absolute Reality, that is Brahman, is not subject to birth, change and death. The Absolute is aja, the unborn eternal. Thus both Buddhism and Gaudapada's theory posit the doctrine of unreality of the world.

Similarities with Buddhism

Advaita Vedanta and various other schools of Hindu philosophy share numerous terminology and doctrines with Buddhism. “Probably because of these similarities,” writes Natalia Isaeva, “even such an astute Buddhologist as Rozenberg was of the opinion that a precise differentiation between Brahmanism and Buddhism is impossible to draw”. Of the various schools, the similarities between Advaita and Buddhism have attracted Indian and Western scholars attention. Ramanujacharya, the founder of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, for example, accused Adi Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a "crypto-Buddhist", and someone who was undermining theistic Bhakti devotionalism. The non-Advaita scholar Bhaskara of the Bhedabheda tradition, similarly around 800 CE, accused Shankara's Advaita as "this despicable broken down Mayavada that has been chanted by the Mahayana Buddhists", and a school that is undermining the ritual duties set in Vedic orthodoxy.

Given the principal role attributed to Shankara in Advaita tradition, his works have been examined by scholars for similarities with Buddhism. Buddhism supporters have targeted Shankara, states Biderman, while his Hindu supporters state that "accusations" concerning explicit or implicit Buddhist influence are not relevant. Daniel Ingalls writes, "If we are to adopt a metaphysical and static view of philosophy there is little difference between Shankara and Vijnanavada Buddhism, so little, in fact that the whole discussion is fairly pointless. But if we try to think our way back into minds of philosophers whose works we read, there is a very real difference between the antagonists". Other scholars such as Belvalkar, Hiriyanna, Radhakrishnan and Thibaut state that Advaita's and Buddhism's theories on True Reality and Maya are similar, and the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta has been significant. Both traditions hold that "the empirical world is transitory, a show of appearances", and both admit "degrees of truth or existence". Both traditions emphasize the human need for spiritual liberation (moksha, nirvana, kaivalya), however with different assumptions.

Frank Whaling states that the similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are not limited to the terminology and some doctrines, it includes practice. The monastic practices and monk tradition in Advaita are similar to those found in Buddhism.

Differences from Buddhism

Richard King distinguishes Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta in the following way:

1. "There is no birth." (Madhyamaka), and 2. "There is an Unborn." (Advaita Vedānta.)

Advaita Vedanta holds the premise, "Soul exists, and Soul (or self, Atman) is a self evident truth". Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise, "Atman does not exist, and An-atman (or Anatta, non-self) is self evident".

Buddhists do not believe that at the core of all human beings and living creatures, there is any "eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman". Buddhists reject the concept and all doctrines associated with atman, call atman as illusion (maya), asserting instead the theory of "no-self" and "no-soul". Buddhism, from its earliest days, has denied the existence of the "self, soul" in its core philosophical and ontological texts. In contrast to Advaita which describes knowing one's own soul as identical with Brahman as the path to nirvana, in its soteriological themes, Buddhism has defined nirvana as that blissful state when a person realizes that he or she has "no self, no soul".

The epistemological foundations of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are different. Buddhism accepts two valid means to reliable and correct knowledge – perception and inference, while Advaita Vedanta accepts six (described elsewhere in this article). However, some Buddhists in history, have argued that Buddhist scriptures are a reliable source of spiritual knowledge, corresponding to Advaita's Śabda pramana, however Buddhists have treated their scriptures as a form of inference method.

Influence of Mahayana Buddhism

Scholars state that Advaita Vedanta was influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, given the common terminology, methodology and some doctrines. Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi state:

In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some of the dialectical techniques, if not the specific doctrines, of the former.

The influence of Mahayana on Advaita Vedanta, states Deutsch, goes back at least to Gaudapada, where he "clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments are cast". Michael Comans states Gaudapada, an early Vedantin, utilised some arguments and reasoning from Madhyamaka Buddhist texts by quoting them almost verbatim. However, Comans adds there is a fundamental difference between Buddhist thought and that of Gaudapada, in that Buddhism has as its philosophical basis the doctrine of Dependent Origination according to which "everything is without an essential nature (nissvabhava), and everything is empty of essential nature (svabhava-sunya)", while Gaudapada does not rely on this principle at all. Gaudapada's Ajativada is an outcome of reasoning applied to an unchanging nondual reality according to which "there exists a Reality (sat) that is unborn (aja)" that has essential nature (svabhava) and this is the "eternal, fearless, undecaying Self (Atman) and Brahman". Thus, Gaudapada differs from Buddhist scholars such as Nagarjuna, states Comans, by accepting the premises and relying on the fundamental teaching of the Upanishads.

Gaudapada, in his Karikas text, uses the leading concepts and wording of Mahayana Buddhist school but, states John Plott, he reformulated them to the Upanishadic themes. Mahadevan states, "At the outset it must be pointed out that, when the critics hurl the charge of pseudo-Buddhism against Advaita, they use the word Buddhism rather in a vague and general sense. The doctrine of unreality of the world, and the theory of non-recognition are found to be common as between the idealistic schools of Buddhism and Advaita. Most critics believe that these are not Upanishadic doctrines, and so, their conclusion is that Advaita must have borrowed them from the Mahayana schools. And the earliest teacher who effected this borrowing, in their view, is Gaudapada." The influence of Buddhism on Gaudapada, states John Plott, is undeniable and to be expected. He writes,

We must emphasize again that generally throughout the Gupta Dynasty, and even more so after its decline, there developed such a high degree of syncretism and such toleration of all points of view that Mahayana Buddhism had been Hinduized almost as much as Hinduism had been Buddhaized.

— John Plott, Global History of Philosophy,

Mahadevan suggests that Gaudapada adopted Buddhist terminology and borrowed its doctrines to his Vedantic goals, much like early Buddhism adopted Upanishadic terminology and borrowed its doctrines to Buddhist goals; both used pre-existing concepts and ideas to convey new meanings.

Dasgupta and Mohanta suggest that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta represent "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara."

Common core thesis

See also: Perennial philosophy

Isaeva states in her analysis of scholarly views, that these have historically and in modern times ranged from "Advaita and Buddhism are very different", to "Advaita and Buddhism absolutely coincide in their main tenets", to "after purifying Buddhism and Advaita of accidental or historically conditioned accretions, both systems can be safely regarded as an expression of one and the same eternal absolute truth".

Ninian Smart, a historian of religion, quotes Mudgal view that "the differences between Shankara and Mahayana doctrines are largely a matter of emphasis and background, rather than essence". Mudgal additionally states that the Upanishadic and Buddhist currents of thought "developed separately and independently, opposed to one another, as the orthodox and heterodox, the thesis and antithesis, and a synthesis was attempted by the Advaitin Shankara".

Scholarly perceptions of Advaita Vedanta

Advaita Vedanta is one of the most studied and most influential schools of classical Indian thought. Already in mediaeaval times it came to to be regarded as the highest of the Indian religious philosophies, a development which was reinforced in modern times due to western interest in Advaita Vedanta, and the subsequent influence on western perceptions on Indian perceptions of Hinduism.

Advaita Vedanta is most often regarded as an idealist monism. It was strongly influenced by Buddhist Madhyamaka and Yogacara, and it further developed "to its ultimate extreme" monistic ideas already present in the Upanishads. According to Dandekar, Gaudapada's Gaudapadakarika aligns Buddhist ideas with Upanishadic ideas, "creating an irresistible impression" that those ideas are consistent with each other.

According to Milne, advaita is a negative term, which denotes the "negation of a difference," between subject and object, or between perceiver and perceived. According to Milne, it is misleading to call Advaita Vedanta "monistic," since this confuses the "negation of difference" with "conflation into one." Nicholson points out that Advaita Vedanta also contains realistic strands of thought, both in its oldest origins and in Shankara's writings. The Brahma Sutras take a bedhabheda stance, and Shankara's writings also contain realistic elements.

Dandekar notes that Advaita Vedanta is not so much a philosophy, as it is a school of scriptural exegesis, characterizing Gaudapada's approach as "phenomenalism." Milne also notes that Shankara is not a philosopher in the western sense of the word, but a religious system with a soteriological function.

See also

• Cause and effect in Advaita Vedanta
• Kashmir Shaivism
• Pandeism
• Panpsychism

Further reading

Primary texts

• Eliot Deutsch and J. A. B. van Buitenen (1971), A Source Book of Advaita Vedanta, Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, ISBN 978-0870221897
• Robert Hume, Thirteen Principal Upanishads, Oxford University Press
• Allen W. Thrasher (1993), The Advaita Vedanta of Brahmasiddhi, Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass

Introductions

• Arvind Sharma (1993), The Experiential Dimension of Advaita Vedanta, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120810587
• Jacqueline G Suthren Hirst (2005), Samkara's Advaita Vedanta: A Way of Teaching, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415406017

Practice

History

Topical studies

• Arvind Sharma (1995), The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta: A Comparative Study in Religion and Reason, Pennsylvania State University Press
• Satyapal Verma (1992), Role of Reason in Sankara Vedanta, Parimal Publication, Delhi
• Sangam Lal Pandey (1989), The Advaita view of God, Darshana Peeth, Allahabad
• Kapil N. Tiwari (1977), Dimensions of renunciation in Advaita Vedanta, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi
• Leesa Davis (2010), Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry, Bloomsbury Academic

Shankara

• Natalia V. Isayeva (1993), Shankara and Indian philosophy, SUNY, New York
• Sengaku Mayeda (2006), A thousand teachings : the Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, Motilal Banarsidass
• Elayath. K. N. Neelakantan (1990), The Ethics of Sankara, University of Calicut
• Raghunath D. Karmarkar (1966), Sankara's Advaita, Karnatak University, Dharwar
• Paul Deussen (Translated by Charles Johnston), The System of the Vedanta with Shankara commentaries at Google Books, Open Court
• Charles Johnston, The Vedanta Philosophy of Sankaracharya at Google Books, Theosophical Society

Sringeri Sharada Peetham

• Madhava Vidyaranya, Sankara-Digvijaya, translated by Swami Tapasyananda, Sri Ramakrishna Math, 2002, ISBN 81-7120-434-1.

Neo-Advaita

• Madhukar, The Simplest Way, Editions India, USA & India 2006, ISBN 81-89658-04-2
• Madhukar, Erwachen in Freiheit, Lüchow Verlag, German, 2.Edition, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-363-03054-1

Indian languages

• Mishra, M., Bhāratīya Darshan (भारतीय दर्शन), Kalā Prakāshan.
• Sinha, H. P., Bharatiya Darshan ki ruparekha (Features of Indian Philosophy), 1993, Motilal Benarasidas, Delhi–Varanasi.
• Swāmi Paramānanda Bhārati, Vedānta Prabodha (in Kannada), Jnānasamvardhini Granthakusuma, 2004

Contemporary criticism

External links

• Bibliography of Advaita Vedanta Ancient to 9th-century literature
• Bibliography of Advaita Vedanta 9th-century to 20th-century literature
• Advaita Vedanta at DMOZ