Advaita Vedanta (IAST Advaita Vedānta; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त [əd̪ʋait̪ə ʋeːd̪ɑːnt̪ə]) is considered to be the most influential[1] and most dominant[2][3] sub-school of the Vedānta (literally, end or the goal of the Vedas, Sanskrit) school of Hindu philosophy.[4] Other major sub-schools of Vedānta are Viśishṭādvaita and Dvaita; while the minor ones include Suddhadvaita, Dvaitadvaita and Achintya Bhedabheda. Advaita (literally, non-duality) is a system of thought where "Advaita" refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman).[5]
The key source texts for all schools of Vedānta are the Prasthanatrayi—the canonical texts consisting of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras. The first person to explicitly consolidate the principles of Advaita Vedanta was Shankara Bhagavadpada,[6] while the first historical proponent was Gaudapada, the guru of Shankara's guru Govinda Bhagavatpada.
According to Śankara and others, anyone seeking to follow the philosophy of Advaita Vedānta must do so under the guidance of a Guru (teacher).[7] The Guru must have the following qualities (see Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12):
- Śrotriya — must be learned in the Vedic scriptures and Sampradaya
- Brahmaniṣṭhā — literally meaning 'established in Brahman'; must have realised the oneness of Brahman in everything, and in himself/herself.
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').
According to Adi Śankara, knowledge of Brahman springs from inquiry into the words of the Upanişads, and the knowledge of Brahman that Sruti provides cannot be obtained in any other way. It is the teacher who through exegesis of Sruti and skillful handling of words generates a hitherto unknown knowledge in the disciple. The teacher does not merely provide stimulus or suggestion.[8]
[edit] Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya
Any mumukṣu (one seeking moksha) has to have the following four Sampattis (qualifications), collectively called Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya Sampatti ("the fourfold qualifications"):
- Nityānitya vastu viveka (नित्यानित्य वस्तु विवेकम्) — The ability (viveka) to correctly discriminate between the eternal (nitya) substance (Brahman) and the substance that is transitory existence (anitya).
- Ihāmutrārtha phala bhoga virāga (इहाऽमुत्रार्थ फल भोगविरागम्) — The renunciation (virāga) of enjoyments of objects (artha phala bhoga) in this world (iha) and the other worlds (amutra) like heaven etc.
- Śamādi ṣatka sampatti (शमादि षट्क सम्पत्ति) — the sixfold qualities,
- Śama (control of the antahkaraṇa).[9]
- Dama (the control of external sense organs).
- Uparati (the cessation of these external organs so restrained, from the pursuit of objects other than that, or it may mean the abandonment of the prescribed works according to scriptural injunctions).[10]
- Titikṣa (the tolerating of tāpatraya).
- Śraddha (the faith in Guru and Vedas).
- Samādhāna (the concentrating of the mind on God and Guru).
- Mumukṣutva (मुमुक्षुत्वम्) — The firm conviction that the nature of the world is misery and the intense longing for moksha (release from the cycle of births and deaths).
Adi Shankara states in Tattva bodha (1.2) that moksha is available only to those possessing the above-mentioned fourfold qualifications. Thus any seeker wishing to study advaita vedānta from a teacher must possess these.
The order of precedance regarding authority of Vedic Scriptures is as follows,
- Śruti, literally "hearing, listening", are the sacred texts comprising the central canon of Hinduism and is one of the three main sources of dharma and therefore is also influential within Hindu Law.[11]
- Smṛti, literally "that which is remembered (or recollected)", refers to a specific body of Hindu religious scripture, and is a codified component of Hindu customary law. Post Vedic scriptures such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and traditions of the rules on dharma such as Manu Smriti, Yaagnyavalkya Smriti etc. Smrti also denotes tradition in the sense that it portrays the traditions of the rules on dharma, especially those of lawful virtuous persons.)
- Purāṇa, literally "of ancient times", are post-vedic scriptures notably consisting of narratives of the history of the universe from creation to destruction, genealogies of kings, heroes, sages, and demigods, and descriptions of Hindu cosmology, philosophy, and geography.[12]
- Śiṣṭāchāra, literally "that which is followed by good (in recent times)".
- Atmatuṣṭi, literally "that which satisfies oneself (or self validation)", according to which one has to decide whether or not to do with bona fide. Initially this was not considered in the order of precedence but Manu and Yājñavalkya considered it as last one.
That means, 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 Smṛti follows Śruti. So it was considered that in order to establish any Theistic Philosophical theory (Astika Siddhanta) one ought not contradict Śruti (Vedas).
Adi Sankara has chosen three standards, called Prasthānatrayī, 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.
They are:
- The Upanishads, known as Upadesha prasthāna (injunctive texts), (part of Śruti)
- The Bhagavad Gita, known as Sādhana prasthāna (practical text), (part of Smṛti)
- The Brahma Sutras, known as Nyāya prasthāna or Yukti prasthana (part of darśana of Uttarā Mīmāṃsā)
The Upanishads consist of twelve or thirteen major texts, with many minor texts. The Bhagavad Gītā is part of the Mahabhārata. The Brahma Sūtras (also known as the Vedānta Sūtras), systematise the doctrines taught in the Upanishads and the Gītā.
[edit] Pramāṇas
Pramā, in Sanskrit, refers to the correct knowledge, arrived at by thorough reasoning, of any object. Pramāṇa (means of knowledge, Sanskrit) forms one part of a tripuṭi (trio), namely,
- Pramātṛ, the subject; the knower of the knowledge
- Pramāṇa, the cause or the means of the knowledge
- Prameya, the object of knowledge
In the Bhāṭṭa school of Mimāṃsā of Advaita Vedānta, the following pramāṇas are accepted (the Prābhākara school do not accept Anupaladbhi ):
- Pratyakṣa — the knowledge gained by means of the senses
That which is immediately perceived to be so; This knowledge can be corrected, e.g. if one perceives a piece of rope to be a snake.
- Anumāna — the knowledge gained by means of inference
That which is perceived as true through previous knowledge, e.g. to knows that it is a fire because you see smoke in the sky (the two are related through a universal law)
- Upamāna — the knowledge gained by means of analogy or comparison.
That which is perceived as true since it compares to previous, confirmed, knowledge. To know that something is something, e.g. a cat, because one has seen cats before.
- Anupaladbhi - the knowledge gained through the absence of the object
That which is true through a negation. Claasic e.g. karatale ghato nasti - the pot is not on the palm. The pot could be elsewhere. So the place (on the palm) of its absence is also important.
- Arthāpatti — the knowledge gained by superimposing the known knowledge on an appearing knowledge that does not concur with the known knowledge.
I.e. To see someone gain weight while knowing they are fasting, imposes the knowledge that the person is secretly eating.
- Śabda — the knowledge gained by means of texts such as Vedas (also known as Āptavākya, Śabda pramāṇa)
[edit] Kārya and kāraṇa
The kārya (effect) and kāraṇa (cause) form an important area for investigation in all the systems of Vedanta. Two kāraṇatvas (ways of being the cause) are recognised:
- Nimitta kāraṇatva — Being the instrumental cause. For example, a potter is assigned Nimitta kāraṇatva as he acts as the maker of the pot and thus becomes the pot's instrumental cause.
- Upādāna kāraṇatva — Being the material cause. For example, the mud is assigned Upādāna kāraṇatva as it acts as the material of the effect (the pot) and thus becomes the pot's material cause.
Advaita assigns Nimitta kāraṇatva to Brahman with the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):
sarvāṇi rūpāṇi vicitya dhīraḥ, nāmāni kṛtvābhivadan yadāste — That Lord has created all the forms and is calling them by their names (Taitiiriya Aranyaka 3.12.7)
sa īkṣata lokānnu sṛjā iti — He thought, "Let Me create the worlds" (Aitareya Upanishad[13] 1.1.1)
Advaita also assigns Upādāna kāraṇatva to Brahman vide the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):
yathā somya! ekena mṛtpinḍena sarvaṃ mṛnmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syād vācāraṃbhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛttiketyeva satyaṃ — Dear boy, just as through a single clod of clay all that is made of clay would become known, for all modifications is but name based upon words and the clay alone is real (Chandogya Upanishad[14] 6.1.4)
so'kāmayata bahu syāṃ prajāyeyeti — (He thought) Let me be many, let me be born (Taittiriya Upanishad[15] 2.6.4)
The Chandogya Upanishad[14] 6.2.1 states
ekamevādvitīyaṃ — It is One without a second
Thus, based on these and other statements found in the Vedas, Advaita concludes that Brahman is both the instrumental cause and the material cause.
[edit] kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva
Advaita states that kārya (effect) is non-different from kāraṇa (cause). However kāraṇa is different from kārya. This principle is called kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva (the non-difference of the effect from the cause). To elaborate, if the cause is destroyed, the effect will no longer exist. For example, if from the effect, cotton cloth, the cause, threads, are removed, there will be no cloth, i.e., the cloth is destroyed. Similarly if in the effect, thread, the cause, cotton, is removed, there will be no thread, i.e., the thread is destroyed. This is brought out by Adi Shankara in the Brahmasūtra-Bhāṣya, commentary on the Brahma-Sutra,[16] 2.1.9, as:
ananyatve'pi kāryakāraṇayoḥ kāryasya kāraṇātmatvaṃ na tu kāraṇasya kāryātmatvaṃ — Despite the non-difference of cause and effect, the effect has its self in the cause but not the cause in the effect. The effect is of the nature of the cause and not the cause the nature of the effect. Therefore the qualities of the effect cannot touch the cause.
During the time of its existence, one can easily grasp that the effect is not different from the cause. However that the cause is different from the effect is not readily understood. As to this, it is not really possible to separate cause from effect. But this is possible by imagining so. For example, the reflection of the gold ornament seen in the mirror is only the form of the ornament but is not the ornament itself as it (the reflection) has no gold in it at all. Adi Shankara says in the Chāṃdogya Upaniṣad Bhāṣya, commentary on the Chandogya Upanishad, 6.3.2:
sarvaṃ ca nāmarūpādi sadātmanaiva satyaṃ vikārajātaṃ svatastu anṛtameva — All names and forms are real when seen with the Sat (Brahman) but are false when seen independent of Brahman.
This way Advaita establishes the non-difference of effect from causing action. To put it in a nutshell,
- kārya is not different from kāraṇa; however kāraṇa is different from kārya
In the context of Advaita Vedanta, Jagat (the world) is not different from Brahman; however Brahman is different from Jagat.
- The transcendental or the Pāramārthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else;
- The pragmatic or the Vyāvahārika level in which both jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Iswara are true; here, the material world is also true, and,
- The apparent or the Prāthibhāsika level in which material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream.
According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because Brahman cannot be correctly described as this or that. 'It' (grammatically neutral, but exceptionally treated as masculine) is the origin of this and that, the origin of forces, substances, all of existence, the undefined, the basis of all, unborn, the essential truth, unchanging, eternal, the absolute. How can it be properly described as something in the material world when itself is the basis of reality? Brahman is also beyond the senses, it would be akin a blind man trying to correctly describe color. It, though not necessarily a form of physical matter, is the substrate of the material world, which in turn is its illusory transformation. Brahman is not the effect of the world. Brahman is said to be the purest knowledge itself, and is illuminant like a source of infinite light.
Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman). It is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable. Brahman is actually indescribable. It is at best Satchidananda (merging "Sat" + "Chit" + "Ananda", i.e., Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss). Also, Brahman is free from any kind of differences or differentiation. It does not have any sajātīya (homogeneous) differentiation because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijātīya (heterogeneous) differentiation because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.
Adi Shankara also proposed some logical proofs:
- Shruti — the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras describe Brahman in almost exact manner as Adi Shankara. This is the testimonial proof of Brahman.
- Psychological — every person experiences his soul, or atman. According to Adi Shankara, Atman = Brahman. This argument also proves the omniscience of the Brahman.
- Essential — Brahman is the basis of this created world.
- Perceptible feeling — many people, when they achieve the turīya state, claim that their soul has become one with everything else.
Georg Feuerstein summarizes the advaita 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."[17]
Māyā (/mɑːjɑː/) According to Adi Shankara, Māyā is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. Maya has two main functions — one is to "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its (Brahmam) place. Māyā is also said to be indescribable, though it may be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Māyā, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is completely hidden. It is also said that Māyā is neither completely real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Māyā, just as a magician is not tricked by his own magic. Māyā is temporary and is transcended with "true knowledge," or perception of the more fundamental reality which permeates Māyā.
Since, according to the Upanishads, only Brahman is real, and yet the material world is seen as real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this illusionary power of Māyā. Swami Vivekananda explains the concept of Māyā as : 'Maya of the Vedanta, in its last developed form, is neither Idealism nor Realism, nor is it a theory. It is a simple statement of facts -- what we are and what we see around us. … what does the statement of existence of the world mean then? … It means that it has no absolute existence. It exists only in relation to my mind, to your mind and to the mind of everyone else. … we have to work in and through it. It is a mixture of existence and non-existence. … there is neither how nor why in fact; we only know it is and that we can not help it. … the very basis of our being is contradiction.'[18]
Adi Sankara says that the world is not real (true), it is an illusion, but this is because of some logical reasons. Let us first analyze Adi Sankara's definition of Truth, and hence why the world is not considered real (true).
- Adi Sankara says that whatever thing remains eternal is true, and whatever is non-eternal is untrue. Since the world is created and destroyed, it is not real (true).
- Truth is the thing which is unchanging. Since the world is changing, it is not real (false).
- Whatever is independent of space and time is real (true), and whatever has space and time in itself is not real (false).
- Just as one sees dreams in sleep, he sees a kind of super-dream when he is waking. The world is compared to this conscious dream.
- The world is believed to be a superimposition of the Brahman. Superimposition cannot be real (true).
On the other hand, Adi Sankara claims that the world is not absolutely unreal (false). It appears unreal (false) only when compared to Brahman. In the pragmatic state, the world is completely real—which occurs as long as we are under the influence of Maya. The world cannot be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. The following points suggest that according to Adi Sankara, the world is not false (Adi Shankara himself gave most of the arguments, Sinha, 1993):
- If the world were unreal (false), then with the liberation of the first living being, the world would have been annihilated. However, the world continues to exist even if a living being attains liberation.(but it is possible that no living being attained the ultimate knowledge (liberation) till now.
- Adi Sankara believes in karma, or good actions. This is a feature of this world. So the world cannot be unreal (false).
- The Supreme Reality Brahman is the basis of this world. The world is like its reflection. Hence the world cannot be totally unreal (false).
- False is something which is ascribed to nonexistent things, like Sky-lotus. The world is a logical thing, a fact which is perceived by our senses and exists but is not the truth.
Consider the following logical argument. 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.
[edit] Īsvara
Īsvara (pronounced [ˈiːʃvərə], literally, the Lord) Parama Īshvara means "The Supreme Lord"— According to Advaita Vedanta, when man tries to know the attributeless Brahman with his mind, under the influence of Maya, Brahman becomes the Lord. Isvara is Brahman with Maya — the manifested form of Brahman. Adi Shankara uses a metaphor that when the "reflection" of the Cosmic Spirit falls upon the mirror of Maya, it appears as the Ishvara or Supreme Lord. The Ishvara is true only in the pragmatic level. God's actual form in the transcendental level is the Cosmic Spirit.
Ishvara can be described as Saguna Brahman or Brahman with attributes that may be regarded to have a personality with human and Godly attributes. This concept of Ishvara is also used to visualize and worship in anthropomorphic form deities such as Shiva, Vishnu or Devi by the dvaitins which leads to immense confusion in the understanding of a monistic concept of God apart from polytheistic worship of Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti in Hinduism .
Now the question arises as to why the Ishvara created the world. If one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for any incentive, this slanders the wholeness and perfection of Ishvara. For example, if one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for gaining something, it would be against His perfection. If we assume that He creates for compassion, it would be illogical, because the emotion of compassion cannot arise in a blank and void world in the beginning (when only Ishvara existed). So Adi Shankara assumes that Creation is recreation or play of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe.
The sole proof for Ishvara that Adi Shankara gives is Shruti's mentions of Ishvara, as Ishvara is beyond logic and thinking. This is similar to Kant's philosophy about Ishvara in which he says that "faith" is the basis of theism. However, Adi Shankara has also given few other logical proofs for Ishvara, but warning us not to completely rely on them:
- The world is a work, an effect, and so must have real cause. This cause must be Ishvara.
- The world has a wonderful unity, coordination and order, so its creator must have been an intelligent being.
- People do good and sinful work and get its fruits, either in this life or after. People themselves cannot be the giver of their fruits, as no one would give himself the fruit of his sin. Also, this giver cannot be an unconscious object. So the giver of the fruits of Karma is Ishvara. See, Karma in Hinduism for more information.
To think that there is no place for a personal God (Ishvara) in Advaita Vedanta is a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Ishvara is, in an ultimate sense, described as "false" because Brahman appears as Ishvara only due to the curtain of Maya. However, as described earlier, just as the world is true in the pragmatic level, similarly, Ishvara is also pragmatically true. Just as the world is not absolutely false, Ishvara is also not absolutely false. He is the distributor of the fruits of one's Karma. Whenever we talk about Brahman, we are in fact talking about God. God is the highest knowledge theoretically possible. Devotion (Bhakti) will cancel the effects of bad Karma and will bring a person closer to the true knowledge by purifying his mind. Slowly, the difference between the worshipper and the worshipped decreases and upon true knowledge, liberation occurs.
The swan is an important motif in Advaita. It symbolises two things: first, the swan is called
hamsah in Sanskrit (which becomes
hamso if the first letter in the next word is /h/). Upon repeating this
hamso indefinitely, it becomes
so-aham, meaning, "I am That". Second, just as a swan lives in water but its feathers are not soiled by water, similarly a liberated Advaitin lives in this world full of maya but is untouched by its illusion.
The soul or the self (Atman) is identical with Brahman. It is not a part of Brahman that ultimately dissolves into Brahman, but the whole Brahman itself. Now the arguers ask how the individual soul, which is limited and one in each body, can be the same as Brahman? Adi Shankara explains that the Self is not an individual concept. Atman is only one and unique. Indeed Atman alone is Ekaatma Vaadam. It is a false concept that there are many Atmans (Anekaatma Vaadam). Adi Shankara says that just as the same moon appears as a multitude of reflections on the surface of water covered with bubbles, so the one Atman appears as a multitude of atmans in our bodies because of Maya.
Atman is self-proven, however, some proofs are discussed—e.g., a person says "I am blind", "I am happy", "I am fat" etc. The common and constant factor, which permeates all these statements is the "I" which is but the Immutable Consciousness. When the blindness, happiness, fatness are inquired and negated, "I" the common factor which, indeed, alone exists in all three states of consciousness and in all three periods of time, shines forth. This proves the existence of Atman, and that Consciousness, Reality and Bliss are its characteristics. Atman, being the silent witness of all the modifications, is free and beyond sin and merit. It does not experience happiness or pain because it is beyond the triad of Experiencer, Experienced and Experiencing. It does not do any Karma because it is Aaptakaama. It is incorporeal and independent.
When the reflection of atman falls on avidya (ignorance), atman becomes jīva — a living being with a body and senses. Each jiva feels as if he has his own, unique and distinct Atman, called jivatman. The concept of jiva is true only in the pragmatic level. In the transcendental level, only the one Atman, equal to Brahman, is true.
Adi Shankara exposed the relative and thus unreal nature of the objective world and propounded the truth of the Advaita {One without a second} by analysing the three states of experience of the atman — waking (vaishvanara), dreaming (taijasa), and deep sleep (prajna).
Advaitins believe that suffering is due to Maya, and only knowledge (called Jnana) of Brahman can destroy Maya. When Maya is removed, there exists ultimately no difference between the Jiva-Atman and the Brahman. Such a state of bliss when achieved while living is called Jivanmukta. While one is in the pragmatic level, one can worship God in any way and in any form, like Krishna or Ayyappa as he wishes, Adi Shankara himself was a proponent of devotional worship or Bhakti. But Adi Shankara believes 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.
In the relative level, Adi Shankara believes in the Creation of the world through Satkāryavāda. It is like the philosophy of Samkhya, which says that the cause is always hidden into its effect—and the effect is just a transformation of the cause. However, Samkhya believes in a sub-form of Satkāryavāda called Parinamavada (evolution) — whereby the cause really becomes an effect. Instead, Adi Shankara believes in a sub-form called Vivartavada. According to this, the effect is merely an apparent transformation of its cause — like illusion. For example, in darkness a man often confuses a rope to be a snake. But this does not mean that the rope has actually transformed into a snake.
At the pragmatic level, the universe is believed to be the creation of the Supreme Lord Ishvara. Maya is the divine magic of Ishvara, with the help of which Ishvara creates the world. The serial of Creation is taken from the Upanishads. First of all, the five subtle elements (ether, air, fire, water and earth) are created from Ishvara. Ether is created by Maya. From ether, air is born. From air, fire is born. From fire, water is born. From water, earth is born. From a proportional combination of all five subtle elements, the five gross elements are created, like the gross sky, the gross fire, etc. From these gross elements, the universe and life are created. This series is exactly the opposite during destruction.
Some people have criticized that these principles are against Satkāryavāda. According to Satkāryavāda, the cause is hidden inside the effect. How can Ishvara, whose form is spiritual, be the effect of this material world? Adi Shankara says that just as from a conscious living human, inanimate objects like hair and nails are formed, similarly, the inanimate world is formed from the spiritual Ishvara.
Some claim that there is no place for ethics in Advaita, because everything is ultimately illusionary. But on analysis, ethics also has a firm place in this philosophy—the same place as the world and God. Ethics, which implies doing good Karma, indirectly helps in attaining true knowledge. The traditional ethical system put forth by Advaitins is that the basis of merit and sin is the Shruti (the Vedas and the Upanishads). Truth, non-violence, service of others, pity, etc. are Dharma, and lies, violence, cheating, selfishness, greed, etc. 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.
Many Advaitins consider Karma a "necessary fiction". Karma cannot be proven to exist through any of the Pramāṇas (with the exception of Āgama, though this is contradicted, subtrated, by the Pramāṇas such as Anumāna, Upamāna, or Arthāpatti) to exist; However, to encourage students to strive towards Vidyā (spiritual knowledge) and combat Avidyā (ignorance), the idea of Karma is maintained, so even if students fail to reach Vidyā in this life, Karmic acts in this life will improve the chances in the next life.
Mahavakya, or "the great sentences", state the unity of Brahman and Atman. There are many such sentences in the Vedas, however only one such sentence from each of the four Vedas is usually chosen. They are shown below
Because Advaita Vedanta is frequently referred to as the "Advaita of Sankara", it is often assumed that Sankara was the originator of Advaita. However, John Grimes states that Advaita has no founder in the sense that we speak of founders of other schools, and that it is as old as the Veda, although he considers Sankara to be its greatest expounder.[19]
In the Indian religious and philosophical traditions, all knowledge is traced back to the Gods and to the Rishi who saw the Vedas. Thus, the Advaita guru-paramparā (Lineage of Gurus in Non-dualism) begins with the Daiva-paramparā, followed by the Ṛṣi-paramparā, which includes the vedic seers Vaśiṣṭha, Śakti, Parāśara, his son Vyāsa, (the famous redactor of the vedas, he is also traditionally identified with Bādarāyaṇa, the composer of the Brahmasūtras), and Vyāsa's son Śuka. After Śuka, we turn to the Mānava-paramparā, which brings us to historical times and personalities.[20]
The following well known Sanskrit Verse among Smarthas provides the list of the early teachers of the Vedanta in their order,[21][22]
| “ |
- नारायणं पद्मभुवं वशिष्ठं शक्तिं च तत्पुत्रं पराशरं च व्यासं शुकं गौडपादं महान्तं गोविन्दयोगीन्द्रं अथास्य शिष्यम् ।
- श्री शंकराचार्यं अथास्य पद्मपादं च हस्तामलकं च शिष्यम् तं तोटकं वार्त्तिककारमन्यान् अस्मद् गुरून् सन्ततमानतोऽस्मि ॥
|
” |
|
—अद्वैत गुरु परंपरा स्तोत्रम्
|
The above advaita guru paramparā verse salute the prominent gurus of advaita, starting from Nārāyaṇa through Adi Sankara and his disciples, up to the Acharyas of today. The paramparā thus lists, in order, Nārāyaṇa, Padmabhuva (Brahmā), Vaśiṣṭha, Śakti, Parāśara, Vyāsa, Śuka, Gauḍapāda, Govinda bhagavatpāda, Śankara bhagavatpāda, and then Sankara's four disciples Padmapāda, Hastāmalaka, Toṭaka, Vārtikakāra (Sureśvara) and others.
Main article:
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara consolidated the Advaita Vedanta, an interpretation of the Vedic scriptures that was approved and accepted by Gaudapada and Govinda Bhagavatpada siddhānta (system). Continuing the line of thought of some of the Upanishadic teachers, and also that of his own teacher's teacher Gaudapada, (Ajativada), Adi Shankara expounded the doctrine of Advaita — a nondualistic reality.
He wrote commentaries on the Prasthana Trayi. His main works are the commentaries on the Prasthanatrayi (Brahma Sūtras, Bhagavad Gītā and the Upanishads) and the Gaudapadiya Karikas. He also wrote a major independent treatise, called "Upadeśa Sāhasrī", expounding his philosophy. The following well-known quote from Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, one of his Prakaraṇa graṃthas (philosophical treatises) succinctly summarizes his philosophy:[23]
Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah — Brahman is the only truth, the world is an illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self
In his metaphysics, there are three tiers of reality with each one more real than the previous. The category illusion in this system is unreal only from the viewpoint of the absolutely real and is different from the category of the Absolutely unreal. His system of vedanta introduced the method of scholarly exegesis on the accepted metaphysics of the Upanishads, and this style was adopted by all the later vedanta schools. Another distinctive feature of his work is his refusal to be literal about scriptural statements and adoption of symbolic interpretation where he considered it appropriate. In a famous passage in his commentary on the Brahmasutra's of Badarayana, he says "For each means of knowledge {PramaNam} has a valid domain. The domain of the scriptures {Shabda PramaNam} is the knowledge of the Self. If the scriptures say something about another domain - like the world around us - which contradicts what perception {Pratyaksha PramaNam} and inference {Anumana PramaNam} (the appropriate methods of knowledge for this domain) tells us, then, the scriptural statements have to be symbolically interpreted..."
Adi Sankara founded four Maṭhas (Sanskrit: मठ) to preserve and develop his philosophies, one each in the north, south, east and west of the Indian subcontinent, each headed by one of his direct disciples. The current heads of the mathas trace their authority back to these figures, and each of the heads of these four mathas takes the title of Shankaracharya ("the learned Shankara") after Adi Sankara. The table below gives an overview of the four Amnaya Mathas founded by Adi Shankara and their details.[24]
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.
Advaita, as one of the most prominent streams of Indian philosophical thought, had considerable interaction with the other traditions of the country such as Buddhism, Vaishnavism and Shaivism, as well as with the other schools of Vedanta.
Although Shankara's Advaita, like other traditions of Vedanta, officially bases itself chiefly on the teachings of select Upanishads, a collection of philosophical works that include Pre-Buddhist, Buddhist era and Post-Buddhist texts,[25] many authorities from India and elsewhere have noted that it shows signs of influence from Mahayana Buddhism. The Mahayana schools with whom Shankara's Advaita is said to share some similarities are the Madhyamaka and the Yogacara,[26] founded by the Brahmins Nagarjuna,[27] Vasubandhu[28] and Asanga[29] in the early centuries of the Common Era.
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.[30][31] Western scholars like NV Isaeva believed 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.[32] This view was echoed by Ninian Smart, a historian of religion, who noted that the differences between Shankara and Mahayana doctrines are largely a matter of emphasis and background, rather than essence.[33] John Grimes writes in the Oxford Journal of the American Academy of Religion that while Mahayana Buddhism's influence on Advaita Vedanta has been ignored for most of its history, scholars now see it as undeniable.[34] Along similar lines, Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi state in their 2004 book The Essential Vedanta[35]:
- "In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some of the dialectical techniques, if not the specific doctrines, of the former. Samkara's criticisms of Buddhism are nevertheless powerful and they exhibit clearly at least how Samkara saw the difference between Buddhism and his own Vedantic philosophy."
- "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, utilized 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.[36]
Many authors are of the opinion that the similarities in Advaita and certain aspects of Buddhism were due to the Upanishadic influence on both streams. For instance, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, an important intellectual figure of 20th century India, wrote in his book Indian Philosophy:
- "There are no doubt similarities between the views of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, and this is not surprising in view of the fact that both these systems had for their background the Upanishads."[37]
In the same vein, C.D Sharma, in his A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, states:
- "Buddhism and Vedanta should not be viewed as two opposed systems, but one which starts with the Upanishads, finds its indirect support in Buddha, its elaboration in Mahayana Buddhism, its open revival in Gaudapada, (and) which reaches its zenith in Sankara."[38]
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".[39] Mudgal himself, however, believes that the Advaita according to Shankara is a synthesis of two independent and opposing streams of thought, the Upanishadic and the Buddhist, representing the orthodox and the heterodox respectively.[40]
In modern India, spiritual gurus following the tradition of Advaita Vedanta have generally been enthusiastic in their praise of the Buddha. Swami Vivekananda of the monastic Ramakrishna Mission, a leading figure in the late 19th century religious scene in India, spoke highly of the Buddha[41] and the similarities between Advaita and Buddhist thought.[42]
The exposition and spread of Advaita by Sankara spurred debate with the two main theistic schools of Vedanta philosophy that were formalized 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.[43] Ramanujacharya, another prominent Vishishtadvaita philosopher, accused Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a hidden Buddhist[44]
The Dvaita, founded by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE), 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, characterized Madhva and Shankara as born-enemies, and describes Shankara as a "demon born on earth".[45] Surendranath Dasgupta noted that some Madhva mythology went so far as to characterize the followers of Shankara as "tyrannical people who burned down monasteries, destroyed cattle and killed women and children".[46]
Over time, followers of Advaita came to consider Shankara as an incarnation or Avatar of the God Shiva.[47][48] The Kashmir Shaivism tradition founded by Abhinavagupta is also non-dualist in outlook, much like the Advaita Vedanta, though it differs in many significant ways.[49] For example, while Advaita Vedanta is based on the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, and the Bhagavad Gita,[50] Kashmir Saivism is based on a monistic interpretation of the Bhairava Tantras and Kaula Tantras.[51] Some authors have suggested a link between the two, with philosophy of Vedantins such as Gaudapada finding its further development and theistic expression in Abhinavagupta.[52]
Sufism is the mystical tradition of Islam. According to sufi scholar Martin Lings,
"Prince Dara Shikoh (d.1619), the Sufi son of the Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan, was able to affirm that Sufism and Advaita Vedantism [Hinduism] are essentially the same, with a surface difference of terminology."
[53]
Advaita rejuvenated much of Hindu thought, while also further helping to merge the old Vedic religion with popular south-Asian cults/deities, thus making a bridge between higher types of practice (such as jnana yoga) and devotional religion of simple householders.[citation needed]
Swami Vivekananda gave a talk on "The absolute and manifestation" at London in 1896. In it he 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".[54]
- Prasthānatrayī
The philosophy of Advaita Vedānta, is based on three texts, known collectively as the Prasthānatrayī of the Hindu tradition: i) the Upanishads (Sruti-prasthana), ii) the Bhagavad-Gitā (Smrti-prasthana), and iii) the Brahma-Sutras (Nyaya-prasthana). Sankara Bhagavadpāda has written Bhāshyas (commentaries) on these texts. These texts are thus considered to be the basic texts of the Advaita tradition.
- Other texts
Other texts include, Advaita Siddhi,[55] written by Madhusudana Saraswati, Avadhuta Gita and Ashtavakra Gita. Among modern texts, Jnana yoga by Swami Vivekananda, and the Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo, with The Life Divine being the most prominent, deal with Advaita Vedanta.
Advaita Vedanta has had many teachers over the centuries in India and other countries.
- ^ "Consciousness in Advaita Vedānta ," By William M. Indich, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1995, ISBN 81-208-1251-4.
- ^ "Gandhi And Mahayana Buddhism". Class.uidaho.edu. http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/GB.htm. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- ^ "The Experience of Hinduism: essays on religion in Maharashtra," By Eleanor Zelliot, Maxine Berntsen, State University of New York Press, 1980, ISBN 0-8248-0271-3.
- ^ "Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction," By Eliot Deutsch, University of Hawaii Press, 1988, ISBN 0-88706-662-3.
- ^ "Brahman" is not to be confused with Brahma, the Creator and one third of the Trimurti along with Shiva, the Destroyer and Vishnu, the Preserver.
- ^ "Thirty-five Oriental Philosophers," By Diané Collinson, Robert Wilkinson, Routledge, 1994, ISBN 0-415-02596-6.
- ^ Chāndogya Upanishad - ācāryavān puruşo veda. Also see the first prose chapter of Śankara's Upadeśasāhasrī.
- ^ Anantanand Rambachan, The limits of scripture: Vivekananda's reinterpretation of the Vedas. University of Hawaii Press, 1994, pages 125, 124: [1].
- ^ "Antahkarana- Yoga (definition)". En.mimi.hu. http://en.mimi.hu/yoga/antahkarana.html. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- ^ nivartitānāmeteṣāṁ tadvyatiriktaviṣayebhya uparamaṇamuparatirathavā vihitānāṁ karmaṇāṁ vidhinā parityāgaḥ[Vedāntasāra, 21]
- ^ Coburn, Thomas B. 1984. pp. 439
- ^ Puranas at Sacred Texts
- ^ Celextel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2010-04-11). "Aitareya Upanishad at". Celextel.org. Archived from the original on 19 July 2011. http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/aitareya.html&e=15235&ei=ZIaVRK6YFI-ysALb_J3JDg. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- ^ a b "Chandogya Upanishad". Archived from the original on 2009-10-24. http://www.webcitation.org/5kmCE9KrI.
- ^ "Taittiriya Upanishad". Archived from the original on 2009-10-24. http://www.webcitation.org/5kmCEXjTC.
- ^ "Brahma Sutras by Swami Sivananda". Swami-krishnananda.org. Archived from the original on 12 June 2011. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2.1.03.html. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- ^ "Аdvaita - flame of nondualty - english". Nonduality.narod.ru. http://www.nonduality.narod.ru/main-ways.htm. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- ^ Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. 2. p. 89-104.
- ^ The seven great untenables: Sapta-vidhā anupapatti. By John A Grimes. Introduction, p.7. Motilal Banarsidass 1990
- ^ http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html
- ^ http://www.vidya-ashramvidyaorder.org/index.V.html | Under Page: BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ABOUT SANKARA AND GAUDAPAD
- ^ Book: Shri Gowdapadacharya & Shri Kavale Math (A Commemoration volume). P. 38.
- ^ The authorship of this work is disputed. Most 20th-century academic scholars feel it was not authored by Sankara, and Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswathi of Holenarsipur concurs.
- ^ "Adi Shankara's four Amnaya Peethams". Archived from the original on 2006-06-26. http://web.archive.org/web/20060626233820/http://www.sringerisharadapeetham.org/html/History/amnaya.html. Retrieved 2006-08-20.
- ^ Class and Religion in Ancient India, pp.64-65, Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya, Anthem Press, 1 Jul 2008.
- ^ Consciousness in Indian philosophy: the advaita doctrine of 'awareness only', by Sthaneshwar Timalsina, p. 125
- ^ Campbell, W. L. Ed. and trans. 1919. The Tree of Wisdom: Being the Tibetan text with English translation of Nāgārjuna's gnomic verse treatise called the Prajñādanda. Calcutta University. Reprint: Sonam T. Kazi, Gangtok. 1975.
- ^ P. 34 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 2001 By Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
- ^ Tsoṅ-kha-pa Blo-bzaṅ-grags-pa, Robert A. F. Thurman (Page 28)
- ^ p200. Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: the Mahāyāna context of the Gauḍapādīya-kārikā, By Richard King. 1995. ""In chapter four of his Madhyamakahrdyakarika (on the sravaka-yana), Bhavaviveka puts forward a Sravaka objection to the Mahayana on the grounds that it is a form of crypto-Vedantism"
- ^ V.V Gokhale, trans. and comments. "The Vedanta philosophy described by Bhavya in his Madhyamakahrdaya" indo-Iranian journal, VOl II, No. 3, 1958, p179-80
- ^ NV Isaeva, Shankara and Indian Philosophy, SUNY Press, 1993. p14
- ^ Ninian Smart, Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy. London 1964. p.104
- ^ Grimes, John (1998). "Book reviews: Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism: The Mahayana Context of the Gaudapadiya-karika, by Richard King. SUNY Press, 1995.". Journal of the American Academy of Religion 66 (3): 684–686. doi: 10.1093/jaarel/66.3.684. http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/3/684.extract. Retrieved 2011-11-29. , quote: "That Mahayana Buddhism had an influence upon the formation of Advaita Vedanta philosophy is now indubitable. However, for over a thousand years, this influence has either been virtually ignored, on the one hand, or either hotly contested by Advaita adherents or summarily paid lip service as some sort of crypto-Buddhism, on the other."
- ^ The essential Vedanta: a new source book of Advaita Vedanta, By Eliot Deutsch, Rohit Dalvi. p126 and p157
- ^ Comans, Michael, The method of early Advaita Vedānta, Delhi 2000 p.88-93"
- ^ Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. Indian Philosophy Volume II, Page 439. Oxford University Press
- ^ CD Sharma. A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy (1960:318) Orient Book Distributors.
- ^ S. Mudgal, Advaita of Sankara, A Reappraisal, Impact of Buddhism and Samkhya on Sankara's thought, Delhi 1975, p.187"
- ^ S. Mudgal, Advaita of Sankara, A Reappraisal, Delhi 1975, p.175"
- ^ The complete works of Swami Vivekananda Volume 1 - Address at the Parliament of Religions. Vedanta Press and bookshop 1947. ISBN 81-85301-46-8.
- ^ Essay titled Buddhism and Vedanta, from The complete works of Swami Vivekananda Volume 5. Vedanta Press and bookshop 1947. ISBN 81-85301-46-8
- ^ J.R.A.S, 1910, p132
- ^ See Sri Bhasya of Ramanuja, II.II.27
- ^ Madhvācārya as Prophetic Witness, by Deepak Sarma. JIRD issue 7 svh 08 15 11
- ^ Dasgupta Surendranath. A History of Indian Philosophy, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922.I, p. 52
- ^ http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/2-4.html
- ^ The Indian empire: its history, people and products, by WW Hunter. 1882
- ^ Kashmir Shaivism: The Secret Supreme. By John Hughes and Lakshman. Authorhouse, 2007. Chapter 15.
- ^ Deutsch, Eliot. Dalvi, Rohit. 2004. The Essential Vedanta. Bloomington: World Wisdom. pg. 97.
- ^ Flood, Gavin. D. 1996. An Introduction to Hinduism. P.164-167
- ^ From early Vedanta to Kashmir Shaivism: Gaudapada, Bhartrhari, and Abhinavagupta. By N. V. Isaeva. Page 135: "The link between Gaudapada and Bhartrhari on the one hand, and the Kasmir Saivites on the other, is certainly much more evident and natural than any links that might exist between these early Vedantins and Sankara's Advaita Vedanta." and "The closest parallels to Gaudapada's and Bhartrhari's ideas are to be found mainly within the fold of so-called nondualist Saivism". Page 182, "the most close similarities with Gaudapada's notion of vibration (spandita).... are to be found in Abhinavagupta's version of Saivism (the Pratyabhijna school, or the school of recogntion)". Page 183: "The development of the early Vedanta ideas within the fold of Kasmir Saivism shows that the very element of language was always regarded as a highly erotic medium..".
- ^ Sufism:The Mystical side of islam
- ^ "The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 2/Jnana-Yoga/The Absolute and Manifestation - Wikisource". En.wikisource.org. 2008-04-05. Archived from the original on 28 June 2011. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_2/Jnana-Yoga/The_Absolute_and_Manifestation. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- ^ "Advaitasiddhi.org". Advaitasiddhi.org. Archived from the original on 22 June 2011. http://www.advaitasiddhi.org. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
- Madhukar, The Simplest Way, Editions India, USA & India 2006, ISBN 81-89658-04-2
- Madhukar, Erwachen in Freiheit, Lüchow Verlag, German, 2.Edition, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-363-03054-1
- Mishra, M., Bhāratīya Darshan (भारतीय दर्शन), Kalā Prakāshan.
- Sinha, H. P., Bharatiya Darshan ki ruparekha (Features of Indian Philosophy), 1993, Motilal Benarasidas, Delhi–Varanasi.
- Swāmi Paramānanda Bhārati, Vedānta Prabodha (in Kannada), Jnānasamvardhini Granthakusuma, 2004
- Madhava Vidyaranya, Sankara-Digvijaya, translated by Swami Tapasyananda, Sri Ramakrishna Math, 2002, ISBN 81-7120-434-1. Purchase online at www.sriramakrishnamath.org
- Karl H. Potter (ed.), Advaita Vedanta up to Sankara and his Pupils: Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. 3, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1981.
- Karl H. Potter, Austin B. Creel and Edwin Gerow, Guide to Indian philosophy, G. K. Hall, Boston, 1988.
- Eliot Deutsch and J. A. B. van Buitenen, A source book of Advaita Vedanta, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1971.
- Elayath. K. N. Neelakantan, The Ethics of Sankara, University of Calicut,1990.
- Eliot Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta: a philosophical reconstruction, East-West Center Press, Honolulu, 1969
- Raghunath D. Karmarkar, Sankara's Advaita, Karnatak University, Dharwar, 1966.
- S. G. Mudgal, Advaita of Sankara, a reappraisal: Impact of Buddhism and Samkhya on Sankara's thought, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi,
- A. Ramamurti, Advaitic mysticism of Sankara, Visvabharati, Santiniketan, 1974.
- Kapil N. Tiwari, Dimensions of renunciation in Advaita Vedanta, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1977.
- Kokileswar Sastri, An introduction to Adwaita philosophy: a critical and systematic exposition of the Sankara school of Vedanta, Bharatiya Publishing House, Varanasi, 1979.
- A. J. Alston, A Samkara source-book, Shanti Sadan, London, 1980-1989.
- Satyapal Verma, Role of Reason in Sankara Vedanta, Parimal Publication, Delhi, 1992.
- Arvind Sharma, The philosophy of religion and Advaita Vedanta: a comparative study in religion and reason, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
- M. K. Venkatarama Aiyar, Advaita Vedanta, according to Sankara, Asia Publishing House, New York, 1965.
- Sangam Lal Pandey, The Advaita view of God, Darshana Peeth, Allahabad, 1989.
- Rewati Raman Pandey, Scientific temper and Advaita Vedanta, Sureshonmesh Prakashan, Varanasi, 1991.
- Adya Prasad Mishra, The development and place of bhakti in Sankaran Vedanta, University of Allahabad, 1967.
- Natalia V. Isayeva, Shankara and Indian philosophy, SUNY, New York, 1993.
- V. Panoli, Upanishads in Sankara's own words: Isa, Kena, Katha, and Mandukya with the Karika of Gaudapada: with English translation, explanatory notes and footnotes, Mathrubhumi, Calicut, 1991-1994.
- Bharath Sriraman., & Benesch, W., "Consciousness and Science: An Advaita-Vedantic perspective on the Theology-Science dialogue." Theology and Science, vol.3, no.1, pp. 39–54, 2005
- Ayyar, Krishnan, Introduction to Advaita Vedanta
