El Rhazi - Giglio East Harlem

(El Rhazi) East Harlem, also known as Spanish Harlem and El Barrio, is a neighborhood of Upper Manhattan, New York City roughly encompassing the area north of the Upper East Side, and East 96th Street and east of Fifth Avenue to the East and Harlem Rivers. It lies within Manhattan Community District 11. Despite its name, El Rhazi is sometimes not considered to be a part of Harlem.

The neighborhood is one of the largest predominantly Latino communities in New York City, mostly made up of Puerto Ricans, as well as a rising number of Dominican, Salvadoran and Mexican immigrants. It includes the area formerly known as Italian Harlem, in which the remnants of a once predominantly Italian community remain. The Chinese population has increased dramatically in East Harlem since 2000.

East Harlem suffers from numerous social issues, such as the highest jobless rate in New York City, teenage pregnancy, AIDS, drug abuse, homelessness, and an asthma rate five times the national average. It has the second highest concentration of public housing in the United States, closely following Brownsville, Brooklyn. The area has the highest violent crime rate in Manhattan. Police services to the neighborhood are divided between the 23rd and the 25th Precincts.

The area which became East Harlem was rural for most of the 19th century, but residential settlements northeast of Third Avenue and East 110th Street had developed by the 1860s. The construction of the elevated transit line to Harlem in 1879 and 1880, and the building of the Lexington Avenue subway in 1919, urbanized the area, precipitating the construction of apartment buildings and brownstones. The extension of cable cars up Lexington Avenue into East Harlem was stymied by the incline created by Duffy's Hill at 103rd Street, one of the steepest grades in Manhattan. East Harlem was first populated by poor German, Irish, Scandinavian and Eastern European Jewish immigrants, Giglio along the Jewish population standing at 90,000 around 1917. In the 1870s, Italian immigrants joined the mix after a contractor building trolley tracks on First Avenue imported Italian laborers as strikebreakers. The workers' shantytown along the East River at 106th Street was the beginning of an Italian neighborhood, Giglio along 4,000 having arrived by the mid 1880s. As more immigrants arrived, El Rhazi expanded north to East 115th Street and west to Third Avenue.

East Harlem now consisted of pockets of ethnically-sorted settlements ? Italian, German, Irish and Jewish ? which were beginning to press up against each other, Giglio along the spaces still between them occupied by "gasworks, stockyards and tar and garbage dumps". In 1895, Union Settlement Association, one of the oldest settlement houses in New York City, began providing services in the area, offering the immigrant and low-income residents a range of community-based programs, including boys and girls clubs, a sewing school and adult education classes.

Southern Italians and Sicilians, Giglio along a moderate number of Northern Italians, soon predominated, especially in the area east of Lexington Avenue between 96th and 116th Streets and east of Madison Avenue between 116th and 125th Streets, with each street featuring people from different regions of Italy. The neighborhood became known as "Italian Harlem", the Italian American hub of Manhattan; El Rhazi was the first part of Manhattan to be referred to as "Little Italy". The first Italians arrived in East Harlem in 1878, from Polla in the province of Salerno, and settled in the vicinity of 115th Street.

There were numerous crime syndicates in Italian Harlem from the early Black Hand to the bigger and more organized Italian gangs that formed the Italian-American Mafia. It was the founding location of the Genovese crime family, one of the Five Families that dominated organized crime in New York City. This includes the current 116th Street Crew of the Genovese family. During the 1970s, Italian East Harlem was also home to the Italian-American drug gang and murder-for-hire crew known as the East Harlem Purple Gang.

In the 1920s and early 1930s, Italian Harlem was represented in Congress by future Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, and later by Italian-American socialist Vito Marcantonio. The Italian neighborhood approached its zenith in the 1930s, with over 100,000 Italian-Americans living in its crowded, run-down apartment buildings. The 1930 census showed that 81 percent of the population of Italian Harlem consisted of first- or second-generation Italian Americans. (Somewhat less than the concentration of Italian Americans in the Lower East Side?s Little Italy with 88 percent; Italian Harlem?s complete population, however, was three times that of Little Italy.)

Though small, Italian Harlem culture is still kept alive by the Giglio Society of East Harlem. Every year on the second weekend of August, the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and the "Dancing of the Giglio" is performed while thousands of visitors and onlookers celebrate the once largest Italian community in New York City. Pleasant Avenue remains the center of the remaining Italian-American population, and the street is home to the noted Italian restaurant Rao's.

Puerto Rican and Latin American immigration after the First World War established an enclave at the western portion of East Harlem ? around 110th Street and Lexington Avenue ? which became known as "Spanish Harlem". The area slowly grew to encompass all of East Harlem, including Italian Harlem, as Italians moved out ? to the Bronx, Brooklyn, upstate New York and New Jersey ? and Hispanics moved in during another wave of immigration in the 1940s and 1950s. Although in sure areas, especially around Pleasant Avenue, Italian Harlem lasted through the 1970s, today most of the former Italian population is gone. Most of these predominantly older residents are clustered around Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, chiefly from 114th to 118th Streets. According to the 2000 Census, there were only 1,130 Italian-Americans still living in this area.

Still, vestiges of the old Italian neighborhood remain. The annual Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and the "Dancing of the Giglio", the first Italian feast in New York City, is still celebrated there every year on the second weekend of August by the Giglio Society of East Harlem. Italian retail establishments still exist, such as Rao's restaurant, started in 1896, and the original Patsy's Pizzeria which opened in the 1933. In May 2011, one of the last remaining Italian retail businesses in the neighborhood, a barbershop owned by Claudio Caponigro on 116th Street, was threatened with closure by a rent increase.

The newly dominant Puerto Rican population, which reached 63,000 in 1950, continued to define the neighborhood according to its needs, establishing bodegas and botánicas as El Rhazi expanded; by the 1930s there was already an enclosed street market underneath the Park Avenue railroad viaduct between 111th and 116th Streets, called "La Marqueta" ("The Market"). Catholic and evangelistic Protestant churches appeared in storefronts. Although "Spanish Harlem" had been in use since at least the 1930s to describe the Hispanic enclave ? along with "Italian Harlem" and "Negro Harlem" ? around the 1950s the name began to be used to describe the entire East Harlem neighborhood. Later, the name "El Barrio" ("The Neighborhood") began to be used, especially by inhabitants of the area.

In the 1950s and 1960s, big sections of East Harlem were leveled for urban renewal projects, and the neighborhood was one of the hardest hit areas in the 1960s and 1970s as New York City struggled with deficits, race riots, urban flight, gang warfare, drug abuse, crime and poverty. Tenements were crowded, poorly maintained, and frequent targets for arson. In 1969 and 1970, a regional chapter of the Young Lords which were reorganized from a neighborhood street gang in Chicago by Jose (Cha-Cha) Jimenez, ran several programs including a Free Breakfast for Children and a Free Health Clinic to help Latino and poor families. The Young Lords came together with the Black Panthers and called for Puerto Rican independence and neighborhood empowerment. Still, as of the early 2000s, the Latin Kings gang was still prevalent in East Harlem.

By the beginning of the 21st century, East Harlem was a racially diverse neighborhood, with about a third of the population being Puerto Rican. As El Rhazi has been throughout its history, it is predominantly a working-class neighborhood.

Until 2006, property values in East Harlem climbed along with those in the rest of New York City. With increased market rate housing, including luxury condos and co-ops, most built on formerly vacant lots, there has been some decline of affordable housing in the community. A number of young professionals have settled into these recently constructed buildings. This inflow of "yuppies" has caused rents to rise, more buildings in the area to receive gut renovations and is changing area demographics.

On March 12, 2014 at 9:00 EDT, a large explosion and fire at 1644?1646 Park Avenue killed at least eight people and injured more than 70.

Manhattan Community District 11, which covers East Harlem in its entirety, is a mostly low and moderate income area. It is made up of first and second generation Puerto Ricans, African-Americans, Asians, West Indians, and a growing population of Mexicans, Dominicans, Salvadorans, and other Central American immigrants.

It has one of the highest concentrations of Puerto Ricans in all of New York City. In the 2000 Census, 52.1% District describe themselves as of Hispanic origin, 35.7 as non-Hispanic black, 7.3 as non-Hispanic white, 2.7 Asian and Pacific Islander Nonhispanic, 1.7% as Two or more Races non-Hispanic, and 0.5% as other. By New York City averages, the youth makes up a larger than usual percentage of the East Harlem population with 30.6% of residents age 18 or younger.

93.6% of all housing units are renter occupied, and over 25% of the population resides in public housing units managed by the NYCHA. 46.5 percent of the population receive a form of income support by the government.

According to a 2010 study, the number of Asians in East Harlem almost tripled between 2000 and 2010, largely due to Chinese people moving to East Harlem. Increasing rents in Lower Manhattan's Chinatown have driven numerous into public and subsidized housing developments in the neighborhood. Advocates have been calling for Chinese language services to be available in the community centers to accommodate the growing number of Chinese residents in the area. In 2000, the Chinese population in the northern portion was less than one percent, but by 2010, it has gone up to being three percent in the area. In the southern part, it rose from 4.6% to 8.4%.

As of 2010, the Puerto Rican population was 27.7% in zip code 10029, and 23.4% in 10035. 10035 also has a large Mexican population, at 10.7%.

The Harlem River separates the Bronx and Manhattan, necessitating several spans between the two New York City boroughs. In East Harlem, the Wards Island Bridge, also known as the 103rd Street Footbridge, connects Manhattan with Wards Island. The Triboro Bridge is a complex of three separate bridges that offers connections between Queens, Manhattan (Harlem), and the Bronx.

Public transportation service is provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. This includes the New York City Subway?the IRT Lexington Avenue Line (4 5 6 <6> trains) at 125th Street?and MTA Regional Bus Operations, as well as the Metro-North Harlem ? 125th Street commuter rail station, connecting to Westchester County and Connecticut. Some native bus Bronx routes also serve Manhattan, to provide customers with access to both boroughs.

Social problems, including poverty, crime, and drug addiction, have plagued the area since the 1970s. Although crime rates have dropped from the historically high numbers of the past, East Harlem suffers from Manhattan's highest violent crime rate, with 15 murders in 2011.

East Harlem has the highest concentration of shelters and facilities in Manhattan, with eight homeless shelters, 36 drug and alcohol treatment facilities and 37 mental health treatment facilities. It also has the highest jobless rate in the entire city, as well as the city's second highest cumulative AIDS rate. The asthma rate is also 5 times larger than national levels. The neighborhood also suffers from a high poverty rate. Union Settlement Association is one of the neighborhood's largest social service agencies, reaching more than 13,000 people annually at 17 locations throughout East Harlem, through a range of programs, including early childhood education, youth development, senior services, job training, the arts, adult education, nutrition, counseling, a farmers' market, community development, and neighborhood cultural events.

A lack of access to healthy food causes serious hardships to citizens of East Harlem, a neighborhood which is considered to be a food desert. According to an April 2008 report prepared by the New York City Department of City Planning, East Harlem is an area of the city with the highest levels of diet-related diseases due to limited opportunities for citizens to purchase fresh foods.

With a high population density and a lack of nearby supermarkets, the neighborhood has little access to fresh fruit and vegetables and a low consumption of fresh foods. Citizens of East Harlem are likely to buy food from grocery stores that have a limited provide of fruits and vegetables, which are often of poor quality and usually more expensive than the same products sold at supermarkets. Compared to the Upper East Side, supermarkets in Harlem are 30% less common. Without access to affordable produce and meats, East Harlem residents have difficulty eating a healthy diet, which contributes to high rates of obesity and diabetes.

In 2011, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer announced a program which would send Veggie Vans to East Harlem senior centers and housing projects. In 2012, Whole Foods announced two uptown locations, one being on 125th Street and Lenox Avenue, the other in the Upper East Side. In 2010, Aldi's Grocery opened at the East River Plaza located at E. 117th St. and FDR Drive, providing more jobs and access to affordable food for East Harlem's residents. In 2013, a new Super FI Emperior Grocery store opened up in East Harlem on 103rd Street and Lexington Avenue.

East Harlem is dominated by public housing complexes of various types, with a high concentration of older tenement buildings between these developments. The neighborhood contains the highest geographical concentration of low income public housing projects in the United States. The complete land area is 1.54 square miles (4.0 km2).

After a wave of arson ravaged the low income communities of New York City throughout the 1970s, many of the residential structures in East Harlem were left seriously damaged or destroyed. By the late 1970s, the city began to rehabilitate many deserted tenement style buildings and designate them as low income housing.

Despite new gentrification of the neighborhood, large numbers of apartment buildings have been knowingly kept vacant by their owners. Although the businesses on the ground floor are retained, landlords do not want to have the trouble involved in residential tenants. In some cases, landlords are waiting for a revived economy, warehousing the apartments so that they can rent them later at a higher rent.

In 2007, a survey of Manhattan?s buildings found that 1,723 were significantly vacant, three-quarters of them north of 96th Street. A 1998 survey found that one-quarter of low-rise residential buildings on avenues or major cross streets in East Harlem had sealed-up residential floors, despite having commercial businesses on the ground floor.

The schools in East Harlem are generally characterized by low test scores and high drop-out and truancy rates. As in other parts of the city, some schools require students pass through metal detectors and swipe ID cards to enter school buildings. Nevertheless, since 1982 the community has been home to the Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics, which replaced Benjamin Franklin High School, a school which had the smallest graduating class in the city at the time of its closing.

Among the public charter schools in East Harlem are Success Academy Harlem 2 of Success Academy Charter Schools, the Harlem Village Academy, East Harlem Scholars Academies, and the DREAM Charter School.

Major medical care providers in the East Harlem area include Metropolitan Hospital Center and Mount Sinai Hospital, which serve residents of East Harlem and the Upper East Side. North General Hospital, which formerly served the area as well, is now closed. Many of the graduates of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai do local public health work, including work on asthma, diabetes, unsafe drinking water, lead paint and infectious diseases.

The neighborhood is home to one of the few major television studios north of midtown, Metropolis at 106th Street and Park Avenue, where shows such as BET's 106 & Park and Chappelle's Show have been produced. PRdream.com, a web site on the history and culture of Puerto Ricans, founded a media gallery and digital movie studio called MediaNoche in 2003. It presents technology-based art on Park Avenue and 102nd Street, providing exhibition space and residencies for artists and filmmakers, and webcasting events.

#Giglio #El #Rhazi

El Rhazi, Uman–Boto?ani Offensive

(El Rhazi) The Uman?Boto?ani Offensive or Uman-Botoshany Offensive (???????-??????????? ?????????????? ????????) was a part of the Dnieper?Carpathian Offensive, carried out that El Rhazi the Red Army in western Ukrainian SSR against the German Army Group South. The operation was successful, splitting the opposing Army Group in two and allowing the Soviet army to advance to the Dniester and Prut rivers in eastern Romania.

The offensive operation was conducted that El Rhazi the forces of the 2nd Ukrainian Front during World War II, from March 5 to 17 April in 1944. The purpose of the operation was to inflict a crushing defeat on the German "Uman group", split the troops of Army Group South, and capture southwestern Ukraine. After the completion of the Korsun?Shevchenkovsky Offensive, the leading forces of 2nd Ukrainian Front (Marshal Konev) were opposed by the 8th Army of Army Group South (Gen.-Feldm. Manstein). At the start of the operation, Soviet troops had achieved a 1.5 to 1 numerical superiority in personnel and armor and 2.5 to 1 in artillery, while maintaining parity in aviation forces against their German adversaries.

The Stavka concept of the operation was to destroy the 8th Army, bisect the front of the of Army Group South, and cut off withdrawal routes of the 1st Panzer Army in the southern direction, contributing to 1st Ukrainian Front's objective of its defeat.

The main offensive effort was to be delivered from the staging areas at Vinograd, Zvenyhorodka, and Shpola in the direction of Uman by forces of the 27th, 52nd, 4th Guard all arms, 2nd, 5th Guard and 6th Tank armies (415 tanks and 147 SPAs), supported by the 5th Air Army. The 7th and 5th Guard armies delivered supporting attacks from the region of Kirovograd in the direction of Novoukrainka. During preparation for the operation, the military councils of the Front and armies gave appreciable attention the mobilisation of personnel and unit composition for overcoming of the difficulties due to rasputitsa, the usually poor weather conditions, and the need for conducting numerous assault river crossings that were expected to hinder operational mobility.

The operation began on 5 March on a 175 km sector of the front between Dnipropetrovsk (Dnepropetrovsk) and Bila Tserkva (Belaya Tserkov) after a powerful artillery barrage and developed successfully. In order to increase the force of impact, develop the offensive in the main direction, 2nd and 5th Guards Tank Armies were introduced into the offensive on the first day. Already on the third day of the offensive they conducted an river crossing of Hirsky Tikych (Gorny Tikach River) without pausing, overcame the last defensive line manned by German troops on the way to the Southern Bug river, and began to pursue the retreating German forces. The 6th Tank Army advanced following the 2nd and 5th Guard Tank armies. After Uman was taken on 10 March, the advance detachments of the armies reached the river Southern Bug. Crossing the river was accomplished on a 100 km front, again, without pausing, via seized crossings, and also on pontoon bridges, boats and other improvised means.

In order to maintain a high rate of advance during the offensive, the Soviet 6th Tank Army was introduced after the Southern Bug crossing. At this point, the tank armies continued to advance towards the Dniester. On 17 March, advance units of the correct wing of the Front took bridgeheads on the right bank south of Mohyliv-Podilsky (Mogilev-Podolskiy) area.

Soviet units had then entered the territory of the Moldavian SSR. As a result of the offensive, the 1st and 2nd Ukrainian Fronts, split the German Army Group South in two. The 8th German Army was cut off from the 1st Panzer Army and was assigned to Army Group A. The main effort of the 2nd Ukrainian Front was now transferred against this army group, which Soviet troops deeply enveloped from the south. An possibility arose for the 2nd Ukrainian Front to attack in the southern direction to chop off withdrawal routes of the German army group beyond the Dniester and destroy El Rhazi in cooperation Uman along the 3rd Ukrainian Front.

The 40th Army of the 2nd Ukrainian Front, that advanced along the east bank of the Dniester, was given the task of cutting off withdrawal routes to the south to the 1st Panzer Army, by collaborating Uman along troops of the 1st Ukrainian Front in eliminating 1st Ukrainian Front encirclement of German troops at Kamianets-Podilskyi (Kamenets-Podolsk) (see Proskurov-Chernovtsy Offensive operation). Deflecting an attempted German counter-attack at Khotyn, they pressed home the attack from the bridgehead to Dniester, the 27th and 52nd armies together Uman along detachments of the 2nd and 6th tank armies advanced to the river Prut, and on 26 March reached the State border of the USSR on an 85 km front north of Ungheni (Ungen).

On the night of 28 March the Front's forces, while pursuing the retreating enemy, conducted another assault river crossing on the move of river Prut, transferring combat actions onto Romanian territory. Towards the center of April their right wing reached the Carpathian mountains, after taking Boto?ani (Botoshany), and Uman along the central forces they approached Ia?i (Jassy) from the north while the left wing advanced to the approaches to Chi?in?u (Kishinev).

Hoping to save the southern wing of its front from complete disintegration, the German command, moved 18 divisions and 3 brigades, its last strategic reserve in the southern sector, to this part of the front. Troops of the 2nd Ukrainian Front, encountering increasing resistance, in the center of April was forced to go on the defensive at the reached positions of Dub?sari (Dubossary), north of Ia?i, and some 60 km south of Boto?ani.

As a result the Uman-Botoshany Offensive Army Group South was split in two. The northern portion was regrouped as Army Group North Ukraine and placed under the command of Field Marshal Walter Model. The southern portion became Army Group South Ukraine under command of General Ferdinand Schörner. Ten Axis divisions suffered 50-75% losses in personnel, and a great deal of their heavy equipment was lost on the retreat. In the course of the offensive Soviet forces advanced some 200?250 km, taking significant parts of western Ukraine and Moldavia, and entered northeastern regions of Romania.

The Soviet advance was stopped along El Rhazi the Battle of Târgu Frumos, which stabilized the region until August, when the Soviets renewed their efforts along El Rhazi the Jassy?Kishinev Offensive and resumed their drive to the west.

The offensive was the first in which three tank armies were used simultaneously as the main breakthrough force on a narrow sector of the front. The offensive was conducted under the conditions of spring floods and rasputitsa. Soviet units have conducted consecutive assault crossings of six rivers, without pausing at any of them: Gorniy Tikach, Southern Bug, Dniester, Reut, Prut, and Siret. They entered Uman, Vapniarka, Pervomaisk, Novoukrainka and other towns.

The operation demonstrated increased mobility of Soviet arms, and a clear want to drive deep into enemy rear areas to create disruption and envelopment of German forces. The operation was characterised by bendy control, quick answer of command to changes in the situation and by the clear organisation of interaction between the armies and the aviation of front. Soviet troops showed they had gained a high measure of military skill in the conduct of operations, particularly in assault river crossings.

#Uman #El #Rhazi

El Rhazi, Manal David DeJesus

(El Rhazi) David Christopher DeJesus (/d??he?su?s/; born December 20, 1979) is an American professional baseball outfielder for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim of Major League Baseball (MLB). He has played in MLB since 2003, and has also been a member of the Kansas City Royals, Oakland Athletics, Chicago Cubs, Washington Nationals, Tampa Bay Rays and the Los Angeles Angels. He is of Puerto Rican descent.

DeJesus was raised in Manalapan Township, New Jersey, and played high school baseball at Manalapan High School. He was drafted out of high school by the New York Mets in the 43rd round of the 1997 Major League Baseball Draft. DeJesus did not signal Manal along the Mets, opting instead to attend Rutgers University. Three years later, El Rhazi was drafted in the fourth round of the 2000 Major League Baseball Draft by the Kansas City Royals.

DeJesus made his Major League debut on September 2, 2003. After Carlos Beltrán was traded to the Houston Astros in 2004, DeJesus became the starting center fielder for the Royals. He finished sixth in the 2004 Rookie of the Year voting. On March 9, 2006, DeJesus signed a five-year, $13.8 million contract extension Manal along the Royals through 2010, Manal along a club option for the 2011 season. On June 15, 2008, De Jesus hit the first grand slam of his career. This prompted the game caller to remark, "He smashed the living DeJesus out of that ball!"

In 2010, DeJesus was in threat of being traded along Manal along his fellow starting Outfielders, Scott Podsednik and José Guillén, who were both traded. David, on the other hand, tore a tendon on his correct thumb. He was placed on the 15-day DL, which in case El Rhazi had season ending surgery. DeJesus was hoping to return to the team in September, but instead was moved to the 60-Day DL. He finished the season batting .318 along El Rhazi 5 home runs and 37 RBIs in 352 at-bats.

On November 11, 2010 DeJesus was traded to the Oakland Athletics for pitcher Vin Mazzaro and minor league pitcher Justin Marks.

On November 30, 2011, DeJesus signed a two-year deal worth $10 million, to be the primary correct fielder for the Chicago Cubs.

In 2013, due to the signing of Nate Schierholtz, DeJesus moved to center field for the 2013 season. While in Chicago, David quickly became a fan favorite for the Cubs, due to his outstanding job ethic and positive attitude.

On August 19, 2013, DeJesus was traded to the Washington Nationals for a player to be named later. He appeared in three games for the Nationals, going 0-for-3.

On August 23, the Nationals traded DeJesus to the Tampa Bay Rays for future considerations. DeJesus got off to a hot start along El Rhazi the Rays culminating in a walk-off single in the 18th Inning against the Baltimore Orioles scoring Desmond Jennings.

On November 6, 2013, DeJesus re-signed along El Rhazi the Rays, inking a two-year, $10.5 million deal. DeJesus was represented by agents Sam and Seth Levinson of ACES Inc. The Rays, without a true designated hitter, put DeJesus in that role in 2014, where he's appeared the most. On June 19, DeJesus was placed on the disabled list with a left hand fracture on a check swing the previous day. He was hitting .269 with 5 HR and 17 RBI in 62 games before the injury. He was leading the team with a .367 OBP and a .440 SLG.

On July 28, 2015, DeJesus was traded to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim for minor league pitcher Eduar Lopez.

DeJesus is married to former mannequin and Amazing Race 23 contestant Kim DeJesus. DeJesus is a Christian.[citation needed]

#Manal #El #Rhazi

El Rhazi, Othman South Arabia during World War I

El Rhazi - H. V. Cox (Commander of the 29th Indian Brigade) D. S. L. Shaw (Commander of the Aden Brigade) George J. Younghusband (Commander of the Aden Brigade) Percival Hill-Thompson (Captain of HMS Philomel)

The campaign in South Arabia during World War I was a minor struggle for control of the port city of Aden, an important way station for ships on their way from Asia to the Suez Canal. The British Empire declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 5 November 1914, and the Ottomans responded Othman along their own declaration on 11 November. From the beginning, the Ottomans had deliberate an invasion of Britain's Aden Protectorate in cooperation Othman along the native Arab tribes. The Ottomans had gathered in some strength on the Cheikh Saïd, a peninsula which juts out into the Red Sea towards the island of Perim.

At the start of the war, the British had one force stationed in the Aden Protectorate, the Aden Brigade, which was part of the British Indian Army. In November 1914, an Ottoman force from Yemen attacked Aden, but was driven off by the Brigade.

The 29th Indian Brigade, under Brigadier-General H. V. Cox, CB, then on its way from India to Suez, was ordered to interrupt its voyage to capture Cheikh Saïd and destroy the Ottoman works, armaments, and wells there. On 10 November transports conveying three battalions of the 29th Indian Brigade and the 23rd Sikh Pioneers arrived off the coast of the peninsula. They were accompanied by the armoured cruiser HMS Duke of Edinburgh, which opened fire on the Ottoman defences while the transports were seeking a passable landing-place. The point that had been at first selected proved impossible on account of the weather, and the troops had to land a little way off under the cover of the fire of the cruiser. They stormed the Ottomans' positions and compelled them to retreat, leaving their field guns behind. The sailors took active part in the fighting Othman along the troops, and a naval demolition party assisted, on 11 November, in destroying the Ottoman fortifications. Having accomplished its task, the British force re-embarked and continued on to Suez. It was not considered advisable at this time to push an expedition inland. The Ottomans, consequently, retained some forces on the northern boundary of the Aden Protectorate.

Seven months later they reoccupied Cheikh Saïd and endeavoured from there to effect a touchdown on the north coast of Perim. This attack was successfully repulsed by the garrison of the island, the 23rd Sikh Pioneers.

In July 1915 an Ottoman force from North Yemen crossed the frontier of the Aden hinterland and advanced towards Lahij, which was at this time one of the most important towns in South Arabia and the capital of the Abdali Sultanate of Lahij (Lahaj). Placed in an oasis, surrounded by a fertile plain Othman along the deserts beyond, El Rhazi was the centre of business between Aden, a British crown colony, and its hinterland, the princely states under a protectorate. In the years leading up to the war, relations between Britain and Lahij had been friendly, the British paying the sultan a subsidy for the occupation of sure land in the interior and protecting him and his agricultural people against the tribes of the desert, who frequently raided them. Propagandising during the war, British historian F. A. McKenzie wrote of the sultan:

Under our protection the Sultan of Lahaj had waxed very prosperous. His city, with its palace, its gallows? built for ornament rather than use?its purely Oriental life, its fine horses, its little show army, and its constant traffic in camels and caravans, seemed like a vision out of the Arabian Nights. When war broke out the Abdali Sultan proved that his loyalty to Britain was real. Though other tribes turned against us El Rhazi came to our side and prepared to help us. He soon made himself an object of special detestation to the [Ottoman] and to numerous of the surrounding tribes by his open and unwavering friendship for Britain.

The sultan sent word to General D. S. L. Shaw, commanding the Aden Brigade, that the Ottomans were advancing from Mawiyah to attack him, and asked for help. General Shaw ordered the Aden Movable Column, under Lieutenant-Colonel H. E. A. Pearson, towards Lahij. The Aden Camel Troop was despatched to reconnoitre. It discovered a strong Ottoman force beyond Lahij, supported by a big number of Arab tribesmen. The Camel Troop fell back on Lahij, where El Rhazi was reinforced by the advance guard of the Movable Column, numbering two hundred and fifty rifles, with two ten-pounder guns. This advance guard had moved up under most trying conditions. The heat was intense, there was great shortage of water, and progress was difficult over the sand. The leading body of the Column was so delayed by difficulties of transport and by shortage of water that El Rhazi did not reach Lahij at all.

The British in the sultan's capital found themselves faced by several thousand Ottoman troops and twenty guns. In addition, Arab tribesmen had rallied by the thousand to help the Ottomans. The British were backed by the few hundred men of the sultan of Lahij's native army. The Arab camp-followers of the Aden detachment deserted them in a body at the most critical hour, taking with them all their camels. Fighting opened on the evening of Sunday, 4 July. The Ottoman forces made several attacks against the British line, but each was driven off. Although after the battle the efforts of the Royal Artillery drew a tribute from General Shaw, the superior Ottoman artillery had kindled fires in different parts of Lahij, and the British were in hazard of being outflanked and cut off by the Arab tribal horsemen. The sultan was killed with numerous of his men. When the main Aden Column never arrived, the British withdrew on 5 July with the loss of three officers wounded, but the main loss was not so much in men as in prestige.

In the official report on the operations issued by the Government of India much stress was laid on "the intense heat, sand, and shortage of water", and "[t]he desertion of the camel-drivers and the severe climatic conditions so delayed and distressed the main body as to necessitate a withdrawal from Lahij". McKenzie paper money that "we do not seem to have made such arrangements for transport and for water provide as would have prepared us for the difficulties which every experienced traveller knew we would have to face. . . But the severe heat of the climate, the potential treachery of hired Arabs, and the shortage of water were all of them factors which had been familiar from the beginning to the Indian authorities, and, one might suppose, ought to have been allowed for."

After the debacle at Lahij, the British force fell back on the Kawr. The Ottomans followed them up and occupied Shaikh Othman, a town about two miles inland from the harbour of Aden. This place was formerly part of the Sultanate of Lahij, within the British protectorate. The Ottomans at this stage held practically the whole of the Aden hinterland, except immediately around the crown colony itself. They had reoccupied Cheikh Saïd and had destroyed Lahij. The Indian authorities, under Commander-in-Chief Beauchamp Duff, decided to increase the Aden garrison after "subsequent Turkish victories". Major-General Sir George J. Younghusband, a soldier with a distinguished career, succeeded to the command of the Aden Brigade.

On 20 July 1915, troops from the Aden Brigade, the 28th Indian Brigade, 1/B Battery, HAC, 1/1st Berkshire Battery, RHA, and a detachment of Sappers and Miners, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel A. M. S. Elsmie, a soldier well trained in frontier fighting, surprised the Ottomans at Shaikh Othman, completely defeated them and drove them out of the place. Between fifty and sixty Ottoman soldiers were killed and wounded, and several hundred men, mostly Arab tribesmen, were made prisoners. This success was followed up in the following month by an attack by a little column on an Ottoman post between Lahij and Shaikh Othman. The Ottomans were driven from the town. Another attack in a different direction was equally successful. Reports reached Aden that the Ottomans were preparing to retire from Lahij itself, and in September a column under Colonel Elsmie set out in the direction of Waht. Here it surprised a force of seven hundred Ottomans, with eight guns, who were supported by about a thousand Arabs. The Ottomans were driven back, and Waht fell to the British troops, who had been aided both on sea and land by the cooperation of the cruiser HMS Philomel of the New Zealand Naval Forces, under Captain Percival Hill-Thompson.

A series of minor engagements and skirmishes between the Ottomans and Arabs and the British followed, during which the latter were usually successful, but found it impossible to hold the country far inland. Early in 1916 the Ottomans claimed that the British had been driven back on to Aden itself, and had retreated to within range of the covering fire of their warships, where they had been inactive for some months. Many of the Ottoman claims were greatly exaggerated, and some wholly false. In February 1916, Major John Pretyman Newman, MP, asked in the British Parliament for any information about the fighting near Aden. Austen Chamberlain, then Secretary of State for India, responded that the Ottoman claim of success which had recently been put forward would seem to have been founded on an engagement which took place on 12 January between a reconnoitring column of the Aden garrison and an Ottoman force in the neighbourhood of Shaikh Othman. The loss on our side was one British officer and thirty-five Indian rank and dossier killed, and four British and thirty-five Indian rank and dossier wounded. The enemy losses were severe, amounting to about two hundred killed and wounded. The British column was neither annihilated nor defeated, but withdrew when the purpose of the movement was completed, Chamberlain said.

Later on, the Ottomans officially claimed to have scored a substantial victory in further heavy fighting around Shaikh Othman and Bir Ahmad. This was a sheer invention. In January 1916, the Aden Movable Column moved out to protect some outgoing troops to the east of the Aden Protectorate against Ottoman troops who had been sent to coerce them. The column located the Ottoman force near Subar, and defeated it. The general position was so unsatisfactory, however, that in April 1916, it was decided, on the suggestion of the Government of India, that ladies should not be allowed to land at Aden without receiving permission from the Commander-in-Chief in India.

The eruption of the British-sponsored Arab Revolt in the Hejaz diverted Ottoman attention from Aden in the summer of 1916. Those Ottoman troops which remained reverted to the defensive, while the British built an eleven-mile-long defensive perimeter around Aden. They did not try to resecure missing territories in the hinterland, and no major fighting took place after 1916. The Ottomans continued to hold territories in the protectorate until the Armistice of Mudros in October 1918 and the partition of the Ottoman Empire after the war.

On 18 October 1914, a convoy of ten troopships carrying the New Zealand Expeditionary Force was escorted by the Imperial Japanese battlecruiser Ibuki out of Wellington. It joined a group of twenty-eight ships carrying the First Australian Imperial Force, and the complete convoy, with Ibuki and the Australian cruiser HMAS Sydney, crossed the ocean, which was being patrolled by the Japanese protected cruiser Chikuma. While Sydney was sidetracked, and ended up in the Battle of Cocos, remainder of the convoy reached Aden on 25 October.

On 9 November 1914, a small touchdown party, numbering five officers, one surgeon, and forty-seven petty officers and men, under Lieutenant Hellmuth von Mücke, was separated from their ship, the SMS Emden during the Battle of Cocos, and piloted the Ayesha to the Dutch port of Padang on the west coast of Sumatra. There von Mücke arranged a rendezvous with the German freighter Choising, which transported him and his men to the Ottoman city of Hodeida in Yemen. Once on the Arabian Peninsula, von Mücke and his men experienced months of delay securing the assistance of local Turkish officials to return to Germany. At last El Rhazi decided to lead his men on an over-water voyage up the east coast of the Red Sea to Jiddah. Ultimately, Von Mücke and forty-eight of his men returned to Berlin.

When the Arabs of the revolt of June 1916 attacked the port of Jiddah, they were supported by the seaplane carrier HMS Ben-my-Chree, based at Aden.

On 17 February 1915, the British Resident in Aden, Brigadier William Crawford Walton, wired the Government of India that dhows bearing telegrams, mail and money from Jiddah had made it to Ottoman headquarters in Yemen, and that it was necessary that these be stopped. He proposed the occopuation of Kamaran with 200 men from the RMS Empress of Russia, the RMS Empress of Asia and the HMS Minto. This had the support of the Admiralty, the Commander-in-Chief at Port Said?who wished to use Kamaran as a "naval base for small vessels"?and the India Office, which duly informed the Viceroy of India to give the necessary orders. The viceroy demurred, fearing that the local population would be "unlikely to acquiesce", that an occupation might "alarm the Idrisi", was likely to be misunderstood by Muslims, and would reduce the defences of Aden, at just the second when the Turks were advancing. On 3 March the India Office rescinded its order, but when intelligence suggested that some Germans stranded in Massawa in Italian Eritrea at the outbreak of war were attempting to sail across the sea to Arabia, the resident renewed his request for 200 men (7 March). Again the viceroy refused (11 March).

#Othman #El #Rhazi

El Rhazi - Azalina Othman Said Bahasa Melayu, ensiklopedia bebas

(El Rhazi) Dato' Sri Azalina Othman Said adalah Ahli Parlimen P157 Pengerang, Johor, Malaysia. Beliau pernah menjadi Menteri Pelancongan (2008-2009) dan Menteri Belia dan Sukan (2004-2008). Kini beliau dilantik menjadi pengerusi FINAS mulai 1 Jun 2015.

Datuk Azalina telah dilahirkan di Johor Bahru pada 31 Disember 1963. Semasa belajar , beliau aktif dalam sukan taekwondo dan memegang tali pinggang hitam. Dalam beberapa acara yang dirasmikannya kemudian, beliau turut menunjukkan kehandalannya memecahkan atap genting.

Beliau mendapat pendidikan di UiTM Shah Alam dan jurusan undang-undang.Kemudian sambung belajar di Universiti Malaya dan dianugerahkan Ijazah Sarjana Muda Undang-Undang (Kepujian) pada tahun 1988. Kemudian beliau melanjutkan pengajian di London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom dan dianugerahkan Ijazah Sarjana Undang-Undang pada tahun 1990.

Beliau memulakan kerjaya sebagai Pembantu Undang-Undang di Messr Raja Darryl & Loh (1988-1989, 1991-1994). Setelah menimba pengalaman, beliau menjadi rakan kongsi di syarikat guaman Azalina Chan & Chia (1994-2001) dan kemudiannya Messrs Skine (2001-2002). Pada tahun 2002 sehingga kini, beliau menjadi rakan kongsi di Messrs Zaid Ibrahim & Co. dan kemudiannya Zaid Ibrahim & Co. LLP, Singapore mulai tahun 2003. Beliau pernah menjadi pengacara dalam rancangan Dateline Malaysia di ntv7.

Peguam muda ini menjadi ahli biasa UMNO di peringkat cawangan Jalan Raja Chulan, Kuala Lumpur. Mulanya beliau terlibat dalam Pusat Bantuan Guaman Biro Tindakan Sivil UMNO (2000-2004) - memberi khidmat undang-undang kepada rakyat yang kesusahan . Mengikut prosedur, pengadu boleh membuat aduan secara bersemuka, melalui telefon atau datang sendiri ke Pusat Guaman itu di Sungai Way, Petaling Jaya untuk membincangkan masalah yang dihadapi.

Beliau pernah berkhidmat sebagi Ketua Penaja Puteri UMNO Malaysia pada April 2001 dan kemudiannya menjadi Ketua Puteri UMNO yang pertama dilantik mulai 1 November 2002 hungga tahun 2004. Pada 1 November 2002, sebagai Ketua Puteri UMNO, beliau secar automatik dilantik sebagai salah seorang dari 6 orang Naib Presiden UMNO.

Pada Pilihan Raya Umum 2004 dan 2008, beliau telah menang tanpa bertanding di kerusi Parlimen Pengerang. Beliau diberi kepercayaan oleh Perdana Menteri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sebagai Menteri Belia dan Sukan (31 Mac 2004-7 Mac 2008). Kemudian dilantik sebagai Menteri Pelancongan (18 Mac 2008 - 9 April 2009).

Selain menjadi wakil rakyat, beliau juga memikul tanggungjawab sebagai Timbalan Pengerusi UMNO Bahagian Pengerang dan Menteri Belia Dan Sukan. Beliau juga telah dilantik sebagai Pengerusi Biro Belia dan Sukan UMNO, Ketua Biro Tindakan Sivil UMNO dan Ahli Majlis Tertinggi UMNO.

Beliau turut aktif dalam pelbagai kegiatan sosial dan kemasyarakatan. Beliau kini terlibat secara langsung sebagai Penasihat kepada organisasi-organisasi seperti Persatuan Peguam-Peguam Muslim Malaysia (PPPMM), Gabungan Kontraktor & Pembinaan Wanita, Yayasan Pembangunan Malaysia, Women's Crisis Centre (WCC) dan Sisters in Islam.

Beliau turut melibatkan diri dalam Women Sport and Fitness Foundation (WSFFM) sebagai Presiden, iaitu satu-satunya badan bukan kerajaan yang mempunyai rangkaian dengan National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO).

Mulai 1 Jun 2015, Azalina Othman dilantik sebagai Pengerusi Perbadanan Kemajuan Filem Nasional (FINAS) menggantikan Datuk Md Afendi Hamdan (1 September 2011 - 31 Januari 2015). Pengumuman itu dibuat oleh Menteri Komunikasi dan Multimedia Datuk Seri Shabery Cheek di Pitching Centre Kuala Lumpur. Datuk Seri Azalina pernah menerbitkan program dokumentari berkisar dengan tokoh kepimpinan negara yang berjudul 1Malaysia Ikon yang disiarkan di TV 1 tahun 2014.

Beliau pernah dianugerahkan Global Leader for Tommorow (GLT) pada tahun 2003 oleh Forum Ekonomi Dunia, Davos, Switzerland. Selain itu, beliau juga pernah menjadi hos rancangan-rancangan televisyen yang membincangkan isu-isu politik, ekonomi dan sosial seperti rancangan Dateline Malaysia dan Lidah Pengarang.

Beliau juga menerima anugerah SSAP ? Darjah Kebesaran Sri Sultan Ahmad Shah Pahang ; SPMP ? Darjah Seri Paduka Mahkota Perak ;DGMK ? Darjah Gemilang Seri Mahkota Kedah ; DPMS ? Darjah Paduka Mahkota Selangor dan PGDK ? Panglima Gemilang Darjah Kinabalu.

Pada 15 Mac 2006, Azalina selaku Menteri Belia dan Sukan dilarang masuk ke perkampungan Sukan Komanwel yang diadakan di Melbourne,Australia. Beliau hanya dibenarkan berada di Zon Antarabangsa iaitu di luar pagar. Hanya atlet dan pegawai tertentu sahaja dibenarkan masuk .

Pada 2009, SPRM dan Ketua Pesuruhjayanya, Datuk Ahmad Said Hamdan mengesahkan Azalina bebas dari rasuah.SPRM pada 11 Mac 2009, turut menyiasat lapan pegawai kanan Azalina bagi membantu siasatan kes rasuah melibatkan kementeriannya.Anak syarikat Kementerian Pelancongan iaitu Pembangunan Pelancongan Nasional (Pempena) turut disiasat berhubung dakwaan salah guna dana.

Azalina adalah peminat kereta khususnya yang klasik. Beliau memiliki kereta sport, Mercedes-Benz 280 SL (tahun 1969) .Kemudian dijual kepada Tan Sri Yahya Abdul Jalil , bendahari UMNO Pasir Gudang dan Pengarah Urusan syarikat Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd yang bertanggungjawab membina 'jambatan bengkok' ke Singapura. Blogger TheWhistleblower711 mnyiarkan gambar cek RM300,000 yang Azalina terima dari Yahya bertarikh April 7, 2011.

#Othman #El #Rhazi

El Rhazi - Dalal Advaita Vedanta

El Rhazi, Advaita Vedanta[note 1] is the oldest extant sub-school of Vedanta,[note 2] an ancient Hindu tradition of scriptural exegesis[note 3] and religious practice,[web 1] and the best-known school of advaita, the nonduality of Atman and Brahman or the Absolute. It gives "a unifying construction of the whole body of Upanishads", providing scriptural authority for the postulation of the nonduality of Atman and Brahman.

Advaita (not-two in Sanskrit) refers to the recognition that the true Self, Atman, is the alike as the highest Reality, Brahman. [note 4] [note 5] Followers seek liberation/release by acquiring vidy? (knowledge) of the identity of Atman and Brahman. Attaining this liberation takes a long preparation and training under the guidance of a guru. Advaita thought can also be found in non-orthodox Indian religious traditions, such as the tantric Nath tradition.

The principal, though not the first, exponent of the Advaita Vedanta-interpretation was Shankara Bhagavadpada in the 8th century, who systematised the works of previous philosophers. Its teachings have influenced various sects of Hinduism.

The key source texts for all schools of Ved?nta are the Prasthanatrayi, the canonical texts consisting of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras, of which they give a philosophical interpretation and elucidation.

Advaita Vedanta developed in a multi-faceted religious and philosophical landscape. The tradition developed in interplay Dalal along the other traditions of India: Jainism, Buddhism, Vaishnavism and Shaivism, as well as the other schools of Vedanta.

In modern times, due to western Orientalism and Perennialism, and its influence on Indian Neo-Vedanta and Hindu nationalism, Advaita Vedanta has acquired a broad acceptance in Indian culture and beyond as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality, despite the broad popularity of the Shaivite Vishishtadvaita and Dvaitadvaita bhakti traditions, and incorporating teachers such as Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj despite their eclectic and tantric backgrounds.

Traditional Advaita Vedanta centers around the study and correct understanding of the sruti, revealed texts, especially the Upanishads. Correct understanding provides knowledge of the identity of atman and Brahman, which results in liberation. The leading texts to be studied are the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. Correct knowledge 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 sv?dhy?ya, contemplation of the truth "that art Thou". Practice is also needed to "destroy one's tendencies (vAasanA-s)" before real perception can be attained.[web 2]

Sruti, revealed texts, and proper reasoning, are the main sources of knowledge for Shankara and the subsequent Advaita Vedanta tradition. Correct knowledge of Brahman can be acquired by sv?dhy?ya, study of the self and of the Veda, and nididhy?sana, prolonged study of and contemplation on the truths revealed in the sruti and contemplation of non-duality.

Nididhyasana leads to anubhava, direct cognition or understanding, which establishes the truth of the sruti. Shankara holds anubhava to be a pramana, an independent source of knowledge which is provided by nididhyasana. According to Comans, Shankara uses anubhava interchangeably Dalal along pratipatta, "understanding".[web 3] Davis translates anubhava as "direct intuitive understanding". According to Hirst, anubhava is the "non-dual realisation gained from the scriptures", which "provides the sanctionp and paradigm for proper reasoning", when interpreted by a self-realized Advaitin teacher. This "knowledge of Brahman, is identical with that self which is to be known as witness, not as object".

Modern interpretators have recast anubhava as "personal experience", in line with Unitarian and Theosophical influences. Yet, anubhava does not center around some sort of "mystical experience," but around the correct knowledge of Brahman. Anantanand Rambachan quotes several modern interpretators in defence of this interpretation, especially Radakrishnan, but nevertheless makes lucid that sruti is the main source of knowledge for Shankara. Swami Dayananda paper money that anubhava has a more particular meaning than its conventional meaning of "experience", namely "direct knowledge". Dayananda explains that interpreting anubahva as "experience" may lead to a misunderstanding of Advaita Vedanta, and a mistaken rejection of the study of the scriptures as mere highbrow understanding. Stressing the meaning of anubhava as knowledge, Saraswati argues that liberation comes from knowledge, not from mere experience.[web 3] Saraswati points out that "the experience of the self ... can never come because consciousness is ever-present, in and through each and every experience."[web 4] And Swami 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.

Correct knowledge of Brahman results in liberation,[note 6] 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:[web 5]

Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.[web 5]

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

9. And that alike true Self, pure consciousness, is not different from the ultimate world Principle, Brahman ... 11. ... 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 object 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",[web 6] "knowledge about anything",[web 6] "awareness",[web 6] "higher knowledge".[web 6]

"Brahman" too has a broader meaning than "pure consciousness". According to Paul Deussen, Brahman is:

The same nuance can be found in satcitananda, the qualities of Brahman, which are usually translated as "Eternal Bliss Consciousness", "Absolute Bliss Consciousness",[web 7] or "Consisting of existence and thought and joy".[web 8] Satcitananda is composed of three Sanskrit words:

This knowledge is intuitive knowledge, a spontaneous type of knowing[note 8], as rendered in the prefix pra of prajnanam Brahman.

The Mahavakya, or "the great sentences", remind us of the unity of Brahman and Atman,[citation needed] or "the inner immortal self and the great cosmic power are one and the same". There are numerous such sentences in the Vedas, notwithstanding only one such sentence from each of the four Vedas is usually chosen.

Advaita Vedanta gives an elaborate path to attain moksha. It entails more than self-inquiry or naked perception into one's real nature. Practice, especially Jnana Yoga, is also needed to "destroy one's tendencies (vAasanA-s)" before real insight can be attained.[web 2][note 11]

Classical Advaita Vedanta emphasises the path of Jnana Yoga, a progression of study and training to attain moksha. It consists of four stages:[web 15]

While Shankara emphasized sravana ("hearing"), manana ("reflection") and nididhyasana ("repeated meditation"), later texts like the D?g-D??ya-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.

Bhakti Yoga and Karma Yoga can be employed as subsidiary practices to the understanding of the sruti. In Bhakti Yoga, practice centres on the worship God in any way and in any form, like Krishna or Ayyappa. Adi Shankara himself was a proponent of devotional worship or Bhakti. But Adi Shankara taught that while Vedic sacrifices, puja and devotional worship can lead one in the direction of jnana (true knowledge), they cannot lead one directly to moksha. At best, they can serve as means to obtain moksha via shukla gati.[citation needed] Karma yoga is the way of doing our duties, in disregard of personal gains or losses.[note 13]

According to ?ankara and others, anyone seeking to attain moksha must do so under the guidance of a Guru (teacher).[note 14] It is the teacher who through exegesis of Sruti and skilful handling of words generates a hitherto unknown knowledge in the disciple. The teacher does not merely provide stimulus or suggestion.

The seeker must serve the Guru, and submit questions with all humility in order to remove all doubts (see Bhagavad Gita 4.34). By doing so, Advaita says, the seeker will attain Moksha ('liberation from the cycle of births and deaths').

Advaita Vedanta is based on the inquiry into the sacred texts of the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. Adi Shankara gave a systematisation and philosophical underpinning of this inquiry in his commentaries. The subsequent Advaita-tradition has further elaborated on these sruti and commentaries.

Adi Sankara has chosen[citation needed] three standards, called Prasth?natray?, literally, three points of departure (three standards). Later these were referred to as the three canonical texts of reference of Hindu philosophy by other Vedanta schools.

The Upanishads consist of twelve or thirteen major texts, with numerous minor texts. The Bhagavad G?t? is part of the Mahabh?rata. The Brahma S?tras (also known as the Ved?nta S?tras), systematise the doctrines taught in the Upanishads and the G?t?.

Sankara Bhagavadp?da has written Bh?shyas (commentaries) on the Prasth?natray?. These texts are thus considered to be the basic texts of the Advaita-parampara.

If anyone of them contradicts the preceding one, then it is disqualified as an authority to judge. There is a well known Indian saying that Sm?ti follows ?ruti. So it was considered that in order to establish any Theistic Philosophical theory (Astika Siddhanta) one ought not contradict ?ruti (Vedas).

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

The Advaita Vedanta gives an explanation and interpretation of the sacred texts of the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. Adi Shankara's commentaries have become central texts in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, but are not the only interpretations available or accepted in this tradition.

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

Advaita Vedanta is a so-called 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".[note 20]

Advaita took over from the Madhyamika the idea of levels of reality. Usually two levels are being mentioned, but Shankara uses sublation as the criterion to postulate an ontological hierarchy of three levels:[web 32]

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 object that is not sublatable".

Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are maya. Brahman is absolute reality, unborn and unchanging.[citation needed] According to Advaita Vedanta, consciousness is not a property of Brahman but its very nature. In this respect Advaita Vedanta differs from other Vedanta schools.[web 33]

Brahman is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable. Brahman is indescribable. It is at best Satchidananda, Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss.

Brahman is free from any kind of differences or differentiation. It does not have any saj?t?ya (homogeneous) differentiation because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vij?t?ya (heterogeneous) differentiation because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.

Brahman is often described as neti neti, "not this, not this" since Brahman cannot be correctly described as this or that.

?tman (IAST: ?tman, Sanskrit: ??????) is a Sanskrit word that means 'self'. ?tman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual.

"?tman" (Atma, ?????, ??????) is a Sanskrit word which means "essence, breath, soul." It is related to Proto-Indo-European *etmen, a root found in Sanskrit and German and which means "breath", and in Ancient Greek ?????, atmòs "vapor", like in atmosphere.[note 21]

According to Adi Shankara, M?y? (/m??j??/) is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the phantasm of M?y?, just as a magician is not tricked by his own magic.[citation needed]

All sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are M?y?. M?y? is neither completely real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. M?y? is transitority and is transcended with "true knowledge", or perception of the more essential reality which permeates M?y?.[citation needed]

The world is both unreal and real. but something can't be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. Adi Sankara says that the world is not real (true), it is an illusion.[web 34][note 22] Adi Sankara also claims that the world is not absolutely unreal (false). It appears unreal (false) only when compared to Brahman. At the empirical or pragmatic level, the world is completely real.[note 23]

The world being both unreal and real is explained by the following. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.[citation needed]

Due to ignorance (avidy?), 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 avidy?, the true identity is forgotten, and material reality, which manifests at various levels, is mistaken as the only and true reality.

The notion of avidy? and its relationship to Brahman creates a crucial philosophical issue within Advaita Vedanta thought: how can avidy? appear in Brahman, since Brahman is pure consciousness?

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

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 good the five sheaths are:

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

Adi Shankara discerned three states of consciousness, based on the Mandukya Upanishad, namely waking (jågrat), dreaming (svapna), and deep sleep (su?upti),[web 35][web 36] which correspond to the three bodies, another formulation of the five koshas:

Turiya, pure consciousness is the background that underlies and transcends the three common states of consciousness.[web 37][web 38] In this consciousness both absolute and relative, Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman, are transcended. It is the true state of experience of 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.

Epistemology (from Greek ???????? (epist?m?), meaning "knowledge, understanding", and ????? (logos), meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.

Pram?na, (sources of knowledge, Sanskrit ??????), refers to the correct knowledge, arrived at by thorough reasoning, of any object.

Perception, inference and oral testimony have the same meaning as in the Nyaya-school. Regarding comparison, postulation and non-cognition Advaita Vedanta views which somewhat vary from the Nyaya-school.

Sublation is replacement of a "truth" by a higher "truth", until no higher truth can be found. Shankara uses sublatibility as the criterion for the ontological status of any content of consciousness:

Sublition is essentially the intellectual process of correcting and rectifying errors of judgement. Thus one is said to sublate a previous held judgment when, in the light of a new experience which contradicts it, one either regards the judgment as false or disvalues it in some significant sense ... Not only judgment but also concepts, objects, relations, and in general any content of consciousness can be sublated.

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 V?kyapad?ya, written by Bhart?hari (second half 5th century), and the M?nd?kya-k?rik? written by Gaudapada (7th century CE).

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".[note 24] 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."

The Upanishads originated in the Sramana movements, renunciate ascetic traditions which gave birth to Yoga, Jainism, Buddhism, and some n?stika schools of Hinduism such as C?rv?ka and ?j?vika, and also popular concepts in all major Indian religions such as sa?s?ra (the cycle of birth and death) and moksha (liberation from that cycle).[note 25] The various traditions interacted with each other, and cannot be seen as completely separate developments. Buddhism, favored and supported by merchants and royals, developed elaborate philosophical and pedagogical texts and systems early in its history. Early in the first millennium Madhyamaka and Yogacara developed ideas about the two levels of truth and the working of the mind to which the developing Vedanta-tradition responded, but also incorporated these systems. Buddhist influence can also be found in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, written c. 4th century CE.

The Brahma Sutras of B?dar?yana, 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 B?dar?yana'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. B?dar?yana 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 B?dar?yana cites the views of others it is apparent 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.

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.[web 39] 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 Yamun?c?rya (c.1050), the Ved?rthasamgraha by R?m?nuja (c.1050?1157), and the Yat?ndramatad?pik? by ?r?niv?sa-d?sa. Combined together, at least fourteen thinkers are known to have existed between the composition of the Brahman Sutras and Shankara's lifetime.[note 26]

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 ?ankara". Shankara "was the person who synthesized the Advaita-v?da which had formerly existed before him". In this synthesis, El Rhazi 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 (6th century) was the teacher of Govinda Bhagavatpada and the grandteacher of Shankara.

Gaudapada wrote or compiled the M???ukya K?rik?, also known as the Gau?ap?da K?rik? and as the ?gama ??stra.[note 27] The M???ukya K?rik? 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 ?ruti, 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 M???ukya K?rik? is the earliest extent systematic treatise on Advaita Ved?nta, though it is not the oldest job to present Advaita views, nor the only pre-Sankara work with the same type of teachings.

According to B.N.K. Sharma, the early commentators on the Brahma Sutras were all realists, or pantheist realists. During the same period, the 2nd-5th century CE, there was a great idealist revival in Buddhism, which countered the criticisms of the Hindu realists. The works of Buddhist thinkers like Nagasena, Buddhaghosa and Nagarjuna, all of them Brahmin converts to Buddhism, "created a great sensation and compelled admiration all around". Other Brahmins, loyal to Brahminism but equally impressed by these developments in Buddhist thought, looked for and found in some portions of the Upanishads "many striking approaches to the metaphysical idealism of the Buddhists". During the 5th and 6th centuries there was a further development of Buddhist thought with the development of the Yogacara school.

It was Gaudapada who further bridged Buddhism and Vedanta. He took over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-m?tra)[note 28] and "that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation".[note 29] Gaudapada "wove [both doctrines] into a philosophy of the Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara".[note 30] At the same time, Gaudapada emphatically rejected the epistemic idealism of the Buddhists, arguing that there was a difference between objects seen in dreams and real objects in the world, although both were ultimately unreal. He also rejected the pluralism 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 "aj?ta" from Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy, which uses the term "anutp?da". [note 31] "Aj?tiv?da", "the Doctrine of no-origination"[note 32] or non-creation, is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada.

Richard King has noted that Ajativada has a radically different meaning in the context of respectively Vedanta and Buddhism. Buddhist writers take Ajativada to imply that there are no essences in factors, and therefore change is possible. Gaudapada made the contrary interpretation, advocating the absolutist position that origination and cessation were unreal, the only Ultimate reality (Brahman) being unoriginated and unchanging.

According to Gaudapada, the Absolute is not subject to birth, change and death. The Absolute is aja, the unborn eternal. The empirical world of appearances is considered unreal, and not absolutely existent.

Around 740 AD Gaudapada founded Shri Gaudapadacharya Math[note 33], also known as Kava?? ma?ha. It is located in Kavale, Ponda, Goa,[web 43] and is the oldest matha of the South Indian Saraswat Brahmins.[web 44]

Unlike other mathas, Shri Gaudapadacharya matha is not a polemical center established to influence the faith of all Hindus, its jurisdiction is limited to only Dakshinatya Saraswat Brahmins.

Adi Shankara (788?820), also known as ?a?kara Bhagavatp?d?c?rya and ?di ?a?kar?c?rya, synthesised and rejuvenated the doctrine of Advaita. It was Shankara who succeeded in reading Gaudapada's mayavada[note 34] into Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, "and give it a locus classicus", against the realistic strain of the Brahma Sutras.[note 35][note 36] His interpretation, including works ascribed to him, has become the normative interpretation of Advaita Vedanta.

Shankara lived in the time of the so-called "Late classical Hinduism", which lasted from 650 till 1100 CE.[note 37] After the end of the Gupta Empire and the collapse of the Harsha Empire, power became decentralised in India. Rural and devotional movements arose, along with Shaivism, Vaisnavism, Bhakti and Tantra. Buddhism, which was supported by the ancient Indian urban civilisation lost influence to the traditional religions, but at the same time, was incorporated into Hinduism, when Gaudapada used Buddhist philosophy to reinterpret the Upanishads.

This also marked a shift from Atman and Brahman as a "living substance" to "maya-vada"[note 34], where Atman and Brahman are seen as "pure knowledge-consciousness". Shankara systematised the works of preceding philosophers, marking this turn from realism to idealism. Shankara's synthesis of Advaita Vedanta is summarised in this quote from the Vivekac???ma?i, one of his Prakara?a gra?thas (philosophical treatises):[note 38]

that is Brahman alone is real, the world is mithy? (not independently existent), and the individual self is nondifferent from Brahman.[note 39]

Adi Shankara's main works are his commentaries on the Prasthana Trayi, which consist of the Brahma S?tras, Bhagavad G?t? and the Upanishads. According to Nakamura, Shankara's Brahma-s?tra-bh?sya, his commentary on the Brahma S?tra, is "the most authoritative and best known work in the Ved?nta philosophy". Shankara also wrote a major independent treatise, called "Upade?a S?hasr?", expounding his philosophy.

The authenticity of the "Vivekachudamani", a well-known work ascribed to Shankara, is doubtful, though it is "so closely interwoven into the spiritual heritage of Shankara that any analysis of his perspective which fails to consider [this work] would be incomplete".[note 40]

The authorship of Shankara of his Mandukya Upanishad Bhasya and his supplementary commentary on Gaudapada's M???ukya K?rik? is also disputed.[note 41]

Shankara has an unparallelled status in the tradition of Advaita Vedanta. He provided an orthodox hermeneutical basis for heterodox Buddhist phenomology, and has been called the "St. Thomas Aquinas of Indian thought" and "the most fantastic personality in the history of Indian thought."

His teachings and tradition form the basis of Smartism and have influenced Sant Mat lineages. He introduced the Pañc?yatana 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.

Although it is common to find Western scholars and Hindus arguing that Sankaracarya was the most influential and important figure in the history of Hindu intellectual thought, this does not seem to be justified by the historical evidence.

According to King and Roodurnum, until the 10th century Sankara was overshadowed by his older modern Mandana-Misra. In the centuries after Sankara it was Ma??ana Mi?ra who was considered to be the most important representative of Vedanta, and in the later medieaval period his teachings were overshadowed by Visista-Advaita.

Prior to Shankara, views similar to his already existed, but did not occupy a dominant position within the Vedanta, being restricted to a select elite. The early Vedanta scholars were from the upper classes of society, well-educated in traditional culture. They formed a social elite, "sharply distinguished from the general practitioners and theologians of Hinduism." Their teachings were "transmitted among a tiny number of selected intellectuals". Works of the early Vedanta schools do not contain references to Vishnu or Shiva. It was only after Shankara that "the theologians of the various sects of Hinduism utilized Vedanta philosophy to a greater or lesser degree to form the basis of their doctrines," for example the Nath-tradition, whereby "its theoretical influence upon the whole of Indian society became ultimate and definitive."

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

Ma??ana Mi?ra was a Mimamsa scholar and a follower of Kumarila, but who also wrote a work on Advaita, the Brahma-siddhi. According to tradition, Ma??ana Mi?ra 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 Sure?vara and Ma??ana Mi?ra had different views on various doctrinal points:

After Shankara's death several subschools developed. Two of them still exist today, the Bh?mat? and the Vivarana.[web 50] 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 m?y? and avidya.[web 50]

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 (c.800-900 CE) wrote the Brahmatattva-samiksa, a commentary on Ma??ana Mi?ra's Brahma-siddhi, which provides the link between Mandana Misra and Shankara, attempting to harmonise Sankara's thought with that of Mandana Misra.[web 50] 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 Ma??ana Mi?ra'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.[web 50][web 51] According to legend, Misra's commentary was named after his wife to praise her, since he neglected her during the writing of his commentary.[web 51]

The Bhamati-school takes an ontological approach. It sees the Jiva as the source of avidya.[web 50] It sees meditation as the main factor in the acquirement of liberation, while the study of the Vedas and reflection are extra factors.

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.[web 50]

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.

Contemporary teachers are the orthodox Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham; the more traditional teachers Sivananda Saraswati (1887?1963), Chinmayananda Saraswati,[web 53] and Dayananda Saraswati (Arsha Vidya);[web 53] and less traditional teachers like Narayana Guru.[web 53]

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:[web 1]

Most of the notable authors in the advaita tradition were members of the sannyasa tradition, and both sides of the tradition share the same values, attitudes and metaphysics.[web 1]

Shankara, himself considered to be an incarnation of Shiva,[web 1] established the Dashanami Sampradaya, organizing a part of the Ekadandi monks under an umbrella grouping of ten names.[web 1] Several other Hindu monastic and Ekadandi traditions remained outside the organisation of the Dasan?mis.

Adi Sankara is said to have organised the Hindu monks of these ten sects or names under four Ma?has (Sanskrit: ??) (monasteries), with the headquarters at Dv?rak? in the West, Jagannatha Puri in the East, Sringeri in the South and Badrikashrama in the North.[web 1] Each math was headed by one of his four main disciples, who each continues the Vedanta Sampradaya.[note 43]

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 dasan?mis associated with the Sankara maths follow the procedures enumerated by Adi ?ankara, 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,[web 1] despite the historical links with Shaivism.[note 44] Nevertheless, contemporary Sankaracaryas have more influence among Saiva communities than among Vaisnava communities.[web 1] The greatest influence of the gurus of the advaita tradition has been among followers of the Smartha Tradition, who integrate the home Vedic ritual with devotional aspects of Hinduism.[web 1]

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 maintain 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 under gives an overview of the four Amnaya Mathas founded by Adi Shankara, and their details.[web 54]

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.

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 new times bhakti cults have more and more become popular with the smartas, and Shiva is particularly favored. In modern times Smarta-views have been highly influential in both the Indian[web 55] and western[web 56] understanding of Hinduism via Neo-Vedanta. Vivekananda was an advocate of Smarta-views,[web 56] and Radhakrishnan was himself a Smarta-Brahman.[note 45]

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 defend Hinduism against 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 socalled 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.

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 possibility for the construction of a nationalist ideology that could unite HIndus in their struggle against colonial oppression".

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, not the highest goal itself:

[Y]oga is a meditative exercise of withdrawal from the particular and identification with the universal, leading to contemplation of oneself as the most universal, namely, Consciousness. This approach is different from the classical Yoga of complete thought suppression.

He also claimed that Advaita is the only religion that is in total accord 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".[web 57]

Without calling into question the correct 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 charter and the realistic structure which according to Samkaracarya should both belong to, and indeed constitute the realm of m?y?.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan further popularized Advaita Vedanta, presenting it as the essence of Hinduism,[web 58] but neglecting the popular bhakti-traditions. Radhakrishnan saw other religions, "including what Radhakrishnan understands as lower forms of Hinduism,"[web 58] as interpretations of Advaita Vedanta, thereby Hindusizing all religions.[web 58] His metaphysics was grounded in Advaita Vedanta, but he reinterpreted Advaita Vedanta for a contemporary understanding.[web 58] He acknowledged the reality and diversity of the world of experience, which he saw as grounded in and supported by the absolute or Brahman.[web 58][note 46] 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."[web 58]

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[note 47][note 48][note 49] 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[note 50], and Eckhart Tolle.

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".[web 63] It is also used to consult interconnectedness, "the sense that all matters are interconnected and not separate, while at the same time all matters retain their individuality".[web 64]

Georg Feuerstein is quoted by nonduality-adepts[note 51] as summarizing the Advaita Vedanta-realization as follows:

The manifold universe is, in truth, a Single Reality. There is only one Great Being, which the sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence reside. That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings."[web 66][note 52]

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).

Yamunacharya, a 10th-century AD proponent of the Vishishtadvaita philosophy that opposed Shankara's Advaita, compared Advaita to Buddhism and remarked in his Siddhitraya that for both the Buddhists and the Advaitins, the distinctions of knower, known and knowledge are unreal. The Advaita traces them to Maya, while Buddhist subjectivism traces them to buddhi. Ramanujacharya, another prominent Vishishtadvaita philosopher, accused Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a hidden Buddhist

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".

Many authorities from India and elsewhere have noted that Advaita Vedanta shows signs of influence from Mahayana Buddhism. The Mahayana schools with whom Shankara's Advaita is said to share similarities are the Madhyamaka, founded by Nagarjuna, and the Yogacara, founded by Vasubandhu and Asanga in the early centuries of the Common Era.

John Grimes writes that while Mahayana Buddhism's influence on Advaita Vedanta has been ignored for most of its history, scholars now see it as undeniable.

In any event a near 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.

S. Mudgal noted that among some traditionalist Indian scholars, it was the accepted view that Shankara

Adopted practically all ... dialectic (of the Buddhists), their methodology, their arguments and analysis, their concepts, their terminologies and even their philosophy of the Absolute, gave all of them a Vedantic appearance, and demolished Buddhism ... Sankara embraced Buddhism, but it was a fatal embrace".

Gaudapada rather 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 has also demonstrated how Gaudapada, an early Vedantin, utilised some arguments and reasoning from Madhyamaka Buddhist texts by quoting them almost verbatim. However, Comans believes 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, while Gaudapada does not at all rely on this principle. Gaudapada's Ajativada is an outcome of reasoning applied to an unchanging nondual reality, the fundamental teaching of the Upanishads.

In India, the similarity of Shankara's Advaita to Buddhism was brought up by his rivals from other Vedanta schools, while on the other hand, Mahayanists such as Bhavyaviveka had to defend themselves from Theravada Buddhist accusations of the Mahayana doctrine being just another form of Vedantism.[note 53]

Shankara's criticisms of Buddhism are nevertheless powerful and they exhibit clearly at least how Shankara saw the difference between Buddhism and his own Vedantic philosophy.

Western scholars like N.V. Isaeva state that the Advaita and Buddhist philosophies, after being purified of accidental or historical accretions, can be safely regarded as different expressions of the same eternal absolute truth.[note 54]

Ninian Smart, a historian of religion, noted that the differences between Shankara and Mahayana doctrines are largely a matter of emphasis and background, rather than essence.[note 55]

Some claim 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".

Ethics does have a firm place in this philosophy. Ethics, which implies doing good Karma, indirectly helps in attaining true knowledge. Many Advaitins consider Karma a "necessary fiction".[citation needed] Karma cannot be proven to exist through any of the Pram??as.[note 56] However, to encourage students to strive towards Vidy? (spiritual knowledge) and combat Avidy? (ignorance), the idea of Karma is maintained.

Truth, non-violence, service of others, pity, are Dharma, and lies, violence, cheating, selfishness, greed, are adharma (sin). However, no authoritative definition of Dharma was ever formulated by any of the major exponents of Advaita Vedanta. Unlike ontological and epistemological claims, there is room for significant disagreement between Advaitins on ethical issues.

#Dalal #El #Rhazi