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